When he argues that a reduction in forcing will cause cooling Dana Nuccitelli is not actually talking about drinking. He is talking about the solar forcing of global temperature, but the drinking analogy is a handy way to understand where his argument goes off the rails.

Mr. Nuccitelli, who blogs for the consensus-approvedSkeptical Science website, was writing about Henrik Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory of indirect solar forcing, where Galactic Cosmic Rays are hypothesized to seed cloud formation. If Svensmark is right then a strong solar wind, by deflecting some GCR from reaching the earth, in-effect blows some of the clouds away, letting more sunlight through to warm the planet’s surface.

That can’t possibly explain late 20th century warming says Nuccitelli, because GCR deflection has been estimated (see the Krivova-Solanki graph above) to have peaked by 1980. The rawdata suggests the actual GCR minimum was ten years later, but set that aside. Nuccitelli thinks it is the change in the level of forcing, not the level of forcing, that determines whether the climate system warms or cools:

So, if GCRs really do amplify the solar influence on global temperatures, since 1980 they are amplifying a cooling effect.

Cooling begins when a forcing passes its peak? Fail. Daily temperatures don’t start falling at noon. They continue rising until mid-afternoon. The hottest time of the year isn’t the first day of summer (the summer solstice, after which the days start getting shorter), the hottest time is mid-summer. To think cooling should start when forcing passes its peak is like thinking you can sober up by drinking just a little more slowly.

Here’s a tip for Dana to keep in mind on New Year’s eve: it is the level of alcohol forcing that matters. If you are drinking alcohol faster than you body is excreting it (not exactly the way the earth excretes heat, but similar enough), then your blood alcohol is rising. You are getting drunker, even if you have lowered the rate of your drinking! That’s right, putting a little less rum in your egg nog will not sober you up! Your increasing inebriation will just be a little less rapid, and it is the same for solar forcing.

When the peak level of forcing appears in the rearview mirror, the downward trend in the forcing that begins at that point does not cause cooling. It just causes warming to be a little less rapid. Only when the energy pouring into the climate system falls to the level of the energy escaping back out does the system stop warming. Empirically, that turns out to be mid-afternoon, mid-summer, and approximately the first decade of the 21st century.

Three blind mice

Dana Nuccitelli produced one of three widely cited rebuttals to my suggestion that a new sentence that was added to the Second Order Draft of AR5, a sentence that admits strong evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar amplification, is a “game changer.” That admission is on page 7-43 of the SOD:

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system … The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.

That’s a game changer because the only solar forcing included in the IPCC computer models is the very slight variance in solar irradiance (also known as TSI, or “the solar constant”). If there are other solar forcings in play, working through variables that actually vary substantially as solar activity ramps up and down, that kills the report’s key finding (on page 8-4) that we can have “very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing.”

The two most widely cited rebuttals, which I answered lastweek, were both by lead authors from the IPCC. Steven Sherwood, one of 15 lead authors of chapter 7, pretended that the admission of evidence for “an amplifying mechanism” was only about GCR-cloud. He then proceeded to claim that the evidence for GCR-cloud points to a weak mechanism, and used that as a grounds for dismissing the idea that any substantial solar forcing beyond TSI could be at work.

Doesn’t follow. The evidence for “an amplifying mechanism” (emphasis added) is entirely separate from the evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism. The former is paleo evidence, where numerous studies of the geologic record have found strong correlations between solar activity and climate going back many thousands of years. The evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism is from cloud-chamber experiments and ongoing observations of cloud micro-physics.

It doesn’t matter how unconvinced Sherwood is by the evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism. That evidence does nothing to counter the paleo evidence, cited in the draft report, that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work. By using his discontent with the GCR-cloud theory as an excuse to dismiss the paleo evidence, Sherwood is inverting the scientific method, and he is lying to the public about what the report says, making him a seriously bad guy.

Apparently weak minds think alike because Nuccitelli did the same thing Sherwood did, only a day earlier. Dana’s post only looks at the GCR-cloud mechanism and completely ignores the draft report’s admission of strong evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. It is in the context of that more fundamental mistake that Nuccitelli goes on to completely misinterpret the evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism itself, claiming that anything less than peak forcing causes cooling, arguing in-effect that he can sober up by drinking a little slower. Just tell that to the officer Dana. He won’t even need to give you a breathalyzer.

More evidence that weak minds think alike is the second semi-official rebuttal to my “game change” claim, issued by Joanna Haigh, a lead author of the IPCC’s third report. Haigh proceeds on the same dishonest pretence as Sherwood, telling NewScientist magazine that the new sentence in the draft report is only about GCR-cloud, which she then dismisses with the same drinking-game mistake that Dana makes, claiming that if climate were being driven by solar activity then the planet would have started cooling when solar activity was at its peak:

Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. “If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985.”

Sober up Joanna. Have a single shot instead of a double. Works every time.

Which theory has more trouble with flat 21st century temperatures?

It is amusing how Dana Nuccitelli, through sheer incompetence, was able to prefigure the highly credentialed malfeasance of both of these IPCC fraudsters. Still, Nuccitelli has to be credited with at least a bit of misfeasance of his own because he wasn’t satisfied with just assuring his gullible readers that cooling commences when forcing is at its peak. That only supplied an excuse for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming, leaving the conspicuous lack of 21st century warming still to be dealt with. Dana’s solution? Pretend that the flat 21st century temperature record militates against a solar driver of climate:

In fact, GCRs reaching Earth recently hit record high levels (Figure 4), yet temperatures are still way up.

Temperatures have merely flattened out, they haven’t gone down yet, and no Skeptical Science reader will ever learn that this is just what the discovered correlations between solar activity and climate predict. The strongest temperature response to a change in solar forcing is seen with a lag of about ten years (Usoskin et al. 2005), or one solar cycle (Solheim et al. 2012). The theory that is discomfited by flat 21st century temperatures is the CO2-warming theory, which predicts ever more rapidly increasing temperatures.

Dana might actually think that the flat 21st century temperature record causes trouble for the solar-warming theory but there is no way he can think it causes less trouble for the CO2-warming theory. For him to pretend that 21st century temperatures favor the CO2-warming theory is inexcusably dishonest, but as usual, the professionals are even worse. Note this little gem from the SOD (p. 7-44):

The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

That’s 15 IPCC lead authors all accepting the crackpot idea that you can only get drunk if your rate of drinking is going up. Steady exposure to the high 1950’s level of solar activity will keep you from warming, just as steady swilling of a high level of booze will keep you stone-cold sober. But where Dana only said that “temperatures are still way up” (implicitly acknowledging that they are no longer going up), the draft report here claims that temperatures are still going up (“ongoing climate change”).

Must be a Steven Sherwood sentence. He needs to look at page 10-3 of the SOD (emphasis added):

While the trend in global mean temperature since 1998 is not significantly different from zero, it is also consistent with natural variability superposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trends projected by climate models.

Note that the “consistent with natural variability” part is a near call, after NOAA admitted in 2008 that 15 years of no warming would falsify current models. But yeah, let’s pretend it is the solar theory that has trouble with the lack of recent warming.

The ensuing Skeptical Sciencenewsletter bragged about how many eco-propagandists picked up on nutty Nuccitelli’s non-stop nonsense and the list is indeed impressive, a glaring testament to the total absence of due diligence on the part of these “journalists,” none of whom thought to question Dana’s advice on how to sober up quick. Here is the SkS tally of eco-scalps:

The only “consensus” journalist on this list who showed any integrity was Andrew Revkin, who had already written a post on my leak of the draft report. After updating that post with a link to Nuccitelli, Revkin updated again later with a link to the rebuttal that Jo Nova and I wrote about Seven Sherwood. Thanks Andrew, for being an actual journalist.

To put their “big week” in perspective the folks at Credulous Science reached high for sufficient words:

Winston Churchill once said: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Not this time; we got the truth’s pants on in record time and nipped this myth in the bud before the contrarians were able to misinform the public.

The “truth” in their rendering is whatever patent falsehoods can be used to fool the ignorant into thinking they should fear CO2. No, nutty ones. You did not forge an exception to Churchill’s dictum. You provided a textbook example of it.

Dana is a poster child for those who feel a moral imperative to “believe the scientists”

For the last two years I have had a lot of fun exposing the large number of top climate scientists who claim that it is not the level of forcing that causes warming, but the trend in the forcing. They are all looking at the wrong derivative (one instead of zero).

Given the enormous pressure on the eco-left to accept what these government-funded climatologists are saying it is not surprising that someone like Dana Nuccitelli would swallow the idea that temperature really is driven by the trend in the forcing, and one super-wacky segment in Dana’s post indicates that he really is accepting that this is how physics works. If you leave a pot of water on a steady flame it won’t heat. If you want to heat the water you have to keep turning the flame up. The segment is titled, “Physical Reality Intrudes on Rawls”:

Rawls has argued to the contrary by claiming that the climate is still responding to the increase in solar activity from the early 20th century, and that GCRs are amplifying that solar warming from over 60 years ago. This argument is simply physically wrong. As Figure 2 illustrates, when solar activity rises, temperatures follow suit very soon thereafter. In fact, during the mid-20th century, solar activity and global surface temperatures both flattened out. Are we to believe that the planet suddenly began responding to the pre-1950 solar activity increase in 1975—2012, after not warming 1940—1975? The argument makes no physical sense.

Obviously I never said that late 20th century warming was caused by solar activity from the early 20th century and Dana does not give a citation for what argument of mine he is referring to but its easy to figure out. I have argued manytimes that if one combines the strong paleo correlations between solar activity and climate with the fact that solar activity was at what Ilya Usoskin calls “grand maximum” levels from 1920 to 2000 then it is certainly plausible that much of 20th century warming, including late 20th century warming, could have been caused by the sun. 80 years of a high level of enhanced solar forcing just might warm the place up a bit (and it only did warm a bit, about 0.8 °C over the century).

If I am attributing late 20th century warming to the high solar activity that persisted through 2000, why does Dana think I am attributing it to solar forcings from 60 years earlier? He must be fixed on the idea that only a change in the level of solar forcing can cause warming. That’s what all of these top scientists have been telling everyone and there was no rise in solar activity after 1950, hence any solar-caused warming would have to stem from the pre-1950 rise in solar activity.

But come on Dana. That is not what I am saying. That is what they are saying, and I have been trying my darnedest to expose it as a blatant misrepresentation. I’m not attributing late 20th century warming to the pre-1950 rise in solar activity. I’m attributing it to the fact that solar activity remained at close to the same high 1950’s level until 2000 (or 2003). It is the level of the forcing that causes warming, not the trend in the forcing.

I have to feel bad for Dana on this point. It isn’t his fault. He has been systematically duped by this parade of so-called scientists all telling him that a persistent high level of forcing can’t cause continued warming. Makes me want to put him on a milk carton. The poor guy isn’t just lost, he was kidnapped. Want a piece of candy little boy? Credulous Science indeed.

400 thoughts on “Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog”

The leaked AR5 draft retains the idiocy of GCR attributions for 20th century warming being improbable because of a lack of a trend… they don’t continue in lock step with the temperature. To that I’d mention the big pot of water on my stove heating up to cook pasta continues to get hotter with no change in forcing by the burner below. And eyeballing the GCR vs ocean temperatures over the phanerozoic in the graphs of Shaviv & Veizer’s “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” (2003) leads be to believe the time lag in coming to a new steady state temperature for the Earth in a halving of GCR induced clouds is an even longer time period than boiling a couple gallons of water on my inadequate stove.

So this is how breakthroughs in science are accomplished. It is with debates over inclusion or exclusions of sentences and wording fights over emphasis. I can see we are going to need another Einstein to come forward and blow away this ether debate fog. It better happen soon because the money changer vultures are circling overhead and scheming in the back rooms with assumed names of their pets, etc.

Strewth. So well written Alec I understood most except the reference to the “milk carton”. When complex matters are written in terms we non specialists understand they are all the more effective. Big tick.

You have illustrated clearly how the blinkered crowd of regulars at Skeptical Science respond to independent thinkers who are capable of much broader and deeper understanding of a complex issue.
Dana Nuccitelli and the likes that inhabit that site always respond by grabbing something, anything, that readily comes to mind to rebut a new perspective that is well outside their very narrow grasp without even trying to consider how the new considerations might play a role in the wider world.
I don’t think any of them have ever exhibited an original thought, being sadly capable of only parroting what they have trained themselves to parrot.

Greg Goodknight says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:55 pmIt would be nice to see that chart extended to 2012.
It IS extended to 2012! However what was done was that an 11 year average was taken which gives a completely wrong impression as to what is really happening. To see what I mean, see the graph below. One line is GISS from 1990 to the present. The other is the flat slope from May, 2001. The other is the GISS from 1990 with the 11 year average. So the first 5.5 years after 1990 and the last 5.5 years are cut off since you cannot get an 11 year average with only 2 years. See:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1990/mean:132/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend

When the wind speed is low such as 1998 and 2010, we had El Ninos, but when the wind speed is high, such as 1989 and 2000, we had La Ninas.

(This is from the following at Dr. Spencer’s site: Ulric Lyons says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM
El Nino unforced? I don’t think so. Check for the big drops in solar wind speed in 1997 and 2009: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg)

Hi can I just add to this taken from today Daily Mail website, I know!!! Before anyone comments on it, but I thought it appropriate given this post.
Quote
"

Professor Freeman said a number of factors may have caused this,including changes in the Earth’s movement and changes in sea-surface temperatures.‘The orbit of the Earth around the sun slowly changes with time,’ she said. ‘These changes were tied to the local climate at Olduvai Gorge through changes in the monsoon system in Africa.‘Slight changes in the amount of sunshine changed the intensity of atmospheric circulation and the supply of water.‘The rain patterns that drive the plant patterns follow this monsoon circulation. We found a correlation between changes in the environment and planetary movement.’There was also a correlation between changes in the environment and sea-surface temperature in the tropics.Professor Freeman said: ‘We find complementary forcing mechanisms: one is the way Earth orbits, and the other is variation in ocean temperatures surrounding Africa.’The findings were recently published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences along with another paper on the same issue building on the findings.The second paper shows that rainfall was greater when there were trees around and less when there was a grassland."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2254088/Rapid-climate-change-helped-humans-evolve-claims-new-study-Our-ancestors-adapt-quickly-changing-habitats.html#comments

I noticed that in the linked post at Skeptical Science that Dana uses an 11 year average so his data goes up to the present. The graph at the top of this post only goes to 2003. A close examination of both graphs indicates that in the last ten years the GRC count has decreased. Several posters above have asked for the full data set. Why was the data here truncated? Can you update the graph so that it goes to the present like the one at Skeptical Science?

It’s good to see others mention the temperature problem. I do understand the desire to use the IPCC SOD as a base and attack the alarmists in their own home. However, when you try to match a theory to something that may be completely wrong it opens up another can of worms. You can end up in a catch 22 situation.

I do not have the ability to do this, but could someone take the cosmic ray count and plot it on the same graph as the Hadcrut3 temperature? It seems to be that there is an inverse relationship. See 1900 and 1998 for example. The cosmic ray count dipped low but the temperatures spiked.

“It’s good to see others mention the temperature problem… It really does put skeptics at a disadvantage.

Not really. What puts Nuccitelli at a disadvantage is seeing what the planet is doing. That graph easily deconstructs all the wild-eyed hand waving by all the propagandists like Nuccitelli, in their attempt to convince us that War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and CO2 causes runaway global warming.

Who should we believe, Richard? Nuccitelli? Or Planet Earth? They can’t both be right. One of them is lying.

The Cosmic Ray versus temperature graph is as misleading as a Mann hockey stick as it has a tricky 11 year average. Why 11 years? Why not 10 years? Is that supposed to be a sun-cycle? It all gives a completely wrong impression as to what is really happening. Add to this that the he temperature line is based on a totally manipulated, augmented and corrupted data set fabricated to show continual warming where none exists. Reality is better represented at:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1990/mean:132/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend
Trend is generally flat since 1998, and even flatter since 2005.

Is it possible that the “divergence problem” associated with tree ring data is because they react to solar activity and not temperature? Perhaps Michael Mann would be interested in the graph that Alec Rawls provided.

I realize that there are problems with the GCR-temperature graph: the time-distorting 11 year averages, the fact that it uses non-updated data from 2003 (figure 8 on page 7 of 10 here), but it is the graph Nuccitelli used, and as I note, the timing of the actual GCR peak is a secondary issue. So is the likely exaggeration of warming in the GISS plot. The main point is Dana’s wacky ideas about how physics works, where he thinks that temperature is driven by the trend rather than the level of the forcing.

Not all his fault though. The “milk carton” reference, for anyone who is too young to remember what was printed on the once prevalent cardboard milk cartons, throughout the 80’s it was always pictures of kidnapped children, which is probably why kids today mostly get shuttled around by their parents. The milk-carton campaigns, scared a whole generation of parents into not letting their kids go anywhere by themselves. Most of the “kidnappings” were a product of custody battles. Not REAL kidnappings. Kind of like the not-really-kidnapped Nuccitelli.

Alec Rawls says:
December 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm
“Not all his fault though. The “milk carton” reference, for anyone who is too young to remember what was printed on the once prevalent cardboard milk cartons, throughout the 80′s it was always pictures of kidnapped children, which is probably why kids today mostly get shuttled around by their parents. ”

You had pictures of handcuffed, blindfolded children in trunks of cars on your milk cartons in America in the 80ies?

I have said this before on other threads a few times, I’m fairly sure – but basically, the drinking analogy Alec uses is all about the time lag from change to effect. This is applicable to EVERY climatic cause and effect, from the OHC to the CO2 value, from the ‘midday’ sun to the midnight clear skies. Each and every one of these effects is not instantaneous. Is this not one of the reasons for TOD observation ‘adjustments’? etc, etc. And although it’s slightly OT – this is one of the reasons I still believe in solar forcing being the primary driver (note the term ‘driver’ is intentional) – because quite simply, a gnats hairs worth of increase (or decrease) in solar forcing over a period of years amounts to a sh&tload of energy. But this is also virtually impossible to detect amongst the inherent climate variability without intense measurement (and I mean something like a sensor within every sq kilometer of the earths surface – which we DONT HAVE!) and is even further difficult to detect if there is an inherent time lag delay in measurement some time after the cause actually happened. I tend to use the central heating analogy, because everyone knows how that works – basically it takes an hour or two for your house to heat up when switched on and an hour or two to cool when turned off – and this is for a very small volume/mass that comprises your house and furnishings! Contrast that to the lag effect on something many gazillions of times bigger and with a ‘thermal mass’ that is constantly ‘swapping’ heat between its constituent parts and it clearly becomes a somewhat futile exercise to try and pinpoint a ’cause’!
When you sit down and think about it like that – I still find it amazing that people want to quote a ‘global temperature’ at all!

The inverse relationship between cosmic rays and temperature definitely seems to be strong, especially with the graph with the millions of years. However it is not perfect. But then again, we cannot expect any trend to be perfect since there are many variables controlling climate and not just one.

I think we all agree that if cloud cover dropped 25%, surface temp would rise. However after a time the earth would reach a new higher stable temp, and stop rising. The arguement is about time required to approach this new temp. If the assumed time constant is a year or less, absolute temp would track cover – solar forcing. If the time constant is 100 years, at the decade scales we are looking at temp CHANGE would follow solar forcing. So as far as I can see one person is not clearly stating the time constant, and another is asumming a value that suits his purpose., . . .

Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m positive someone will), but it seems that Dana Nuccitelli’s argument is based solely on lag rates. The central assumtion seems to be that Earth’s environmental system reacts quickly to changes. Inertia, “thermal” or otherwise, is discounted.

As with any assumption, that has to be tested. The null hypothesis would be that there *is* a lag. Prove there is, and Mr. Nuccitelli’s theory is disproved/falsified. Simple. No boiling water analogies needed, just physics.

As for his understanding of “basic physics”, well – like it or not – I believe he’s demonstrated a clear understanding of it, or he wouldn’t have attained a degree, master’s degree, or anything else (not sure if he has a PhD, so my apologies if he has attained that level). Stop attacking the person, and start working on the argument.

Nuccitelli thinks it is the change in the level of forcing, not the level of forcing, that determines whether the climate system warms or cools:

So, if GCRs really do amplify the solar influence on global temperatures, since 1980 they are amplifying a cooling effect.
———–
Alec is mis-stating Dana’s position. Standard debating trick.

As for Alec’s delayed heating argument this makes sense depending on the heat capacities of parts of the system being heated. Since the heating effect of solar radiation on the top layers of the ocean is pretty much immediate and the time scale for the warm ocean heating the air above it is quite short all we need to know what that time scale is exactly.

I reckon the timescale for transferring heat from the ocean surface to the air is like days not years like Alec reckons. So where can I get an actual figure for the ocean to air transfer rate?

The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.
The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 300 years provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change…

I have argued many times that if one combines the strong paleo correlations between solar activity and climate with the fact that solar activity was at what Ilya Usoskin calls “grand maximum” levels from 1920 to 2000
There has been no modern grand maximum. Solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was just as grand. The ‘modern maximum’ is an artifact in the sunspot data series.

Nuccitelli produces the least objective / most distorted charts of anyone involved in the climate change debate. And that is saying something because there are many others out there doing their best to keep the followers believin’. Normally, one would be too embarassed to produce such nonsense but he seems to think it is okay if it is for the cause.

Just disregard anything produced at Skeptical Science and especially anything produced by Nuccitelli.

If Nuccitelli told me it was raining I would still go outside to check , such is the degree of ‘reliability ‘ of their claims . Frankly like their master at SS these wannabe ‘Team ‘ members and not worth the time of day if you actual want to deal in reality .

From someone who constructs excellent charts, Nuccitelli should take that criticism seriously.

It is as easy to lie with charts as it is to lie with statistics. The standard deceptive trend charts use a zero [or an arbitrary temperature] baseline, when they should be using a trend line. They use a zero baseline chart because it fabricates a hockey stick-shaped warming trend. But the hockey stick shape is simply an artifact of a zero baseline chart.

In fact, the long term global warming trend has remained within well defined parameters for hundreds of years. Global warming has not accelerated. As a matter of fact, global warming has stalled for the past decade and a half, while CO2 has continued it’s rise. Draw your own conclusions.

Slightly OT but what is the zero baseline various organisations use based on?
1. Is it the average temperature of all the data?
2. Is it the average temperature of a random period?
3. Is it completely random?

Why are there often no definitions-explanations of the baseline for the given graphs?

1. The rate of elimination of alcohol is partially dependent on the concentration of alcohol.
2. The rate of elimination of alcohol is far less then even the rate of very moderate consumption.

Point 1 is only true for the 5% not metabolized by the liver.

If point 2 were true (it isn’t), a couple of hundred years ago when most people in Europe drank weak beer rather than water, everyone would have died of alcohol poisoning or at least been falling down drunk all the time, and we know they weren’t.

1. Dr. Svalgaard has stated numerous times that TSI has been constant for the past 300 years.
2. With TSI being flat, we have had two occurrences in climate of note.
a. We left the LIA period
b. There was an accelerated warming in the early 20th Century that no one has a clue as to why it happened.
1. WE know the warming of the early 20th Century was not CO2 induced. No matter what metric one uses as far as concentrations, there was not enough of a deviation to force any type of temperature increase. We also know that the temps of the Arctic Area were very similar to today’s temperatures from physical measurements.
2. We know from Proxy data, (Greenland, Sargasso Sea, Antarctica) that there was a world wide Medieval Warm Period. No one knows why with any degree of confidence why this happened.
3. We know there is a solar connection and large river basin drainage flows. From the Nile, The Amazon, the Mississippi that solar connection has been well established.
4. We know , from a chemical basis, that UV and Ozone in the Stratosphere have climatic effects via Jet Stream location and the perennial blocking highs such as the Greenland High placement.

Since no one can explain with any certainty why some of the climatic changes occurred in the past, we keep investigating to find the cause.

Certain items come to mind.

1. There has been no statistical warming for the past 16 years. This is well known. This is not cherry picking, as the parameters of the past 16 present this fact very clearly.
2. We know the ocean heat content, via ARGO, is not showing an accumulation of heat. In fact, it may have a negative bias, but statistically it is flat at this time.
3. We know that we are in a Modoki type of ENSO pattern.http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JC003798.shtml
4. We know from established satellite data, that the earths atmosphere is much clearer to incoming solar. The trend from less clear to clear changed in 1994 and has resulted in 5% less particulates in the atmosphere.

From this knowledge base, we learn that we know that CO2 is a minor driver of climate, if in fact it is a driver at all. Past Geological studies concerning CO2 and the end of interglacials, show that temperature cools and CO2 continues to rise for 800 years or longer.

Conclusion:
We don’t know nearly enough about climate and the drivers, short and long term, to make any type of decision concerning remedial action.

Mr. Nuccitelli is doing the best that he can with what he has…..which in all honesty…..isn’t much.
The certainty of the Science of Climate, as presented by Mr. Nuticelli
, reminds me of Dr. Alfred Wegener and his fight over plate tectonics. The consensus was that he was a lunatic, which we all know for a fact that he wasn’t. Mr. Nuccitelli represents the consensus at this time, and they are just flat out wrong.
.

There has been debate concerning the accuracy of models verses observed temp metrics.
Some of the debate has used http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022 (Grant Foster1 and Stefan Rahmstorf 2012) as a basis to show that the models projections and the temperature are really in concert.

However, this is like comparing apples to oranges…..or maybe even a lime.

Foster/Rahmstorf 2012 remove short term (potentially long term) climate drivers to achieve a continued increase in temperature.

The models, themselves, do NOT include these drivers, such as ENSO, because they just can’t predict when and to what extent, these will happen.

The reality is that temps have been flat for 16 years, the models are over 2 sigma removed from reality…..and no one knows why……..or do they?

There are forces at play that are not recognized, and for certain, not understood in regards to climate.

Can the sun be one of the misunderstood players? Evidence most certainly would indicate that it is.

Different organizations use different baselines. Some use zero, or tenths of a degree, both indicating an anomaly chart, and some use a specific temperature line, such as 14ºC. The point is that if you are showing a trend, you should use a trend line chart. That eliminates the [alarming, but non-existent] hockey stick shape.

Here [note the long term, declining green trend line], and here, and here [0.35ºC rise per century, with no acceleration] are examples of trend line charts. You can see that the long term global warming trend remains unchanged since the end of the LIA. There is no recent acceleration of global warming, despite the fact that CO2 has risen ≈40%. In fact, global warming has stalled for the time being; maybe temporarily, maybe permanently. But despite rising CO2, global warming has stopped.

You ask why there are no explanations with many of the charts. I believe the reason is that it is intended to show a scary rise in temperature — a hockey stick — rather than to inform. All U.S. government agencies [NOAA, GISS, USHCN, etc.] use zero baseline charts when showing the long term natural global warming trend. They know exactly what they are doing, and why. Their budgets would be impacted if they told the truth: that there is no measurable, testable scientific evidence proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. So they bury the truth with fictitious charts that show rapid, but non-existent, global warming.

Before you start talking about temperature try to get a temperature chart that shows what actually happens to it. An 11-year averaged temperature chart is worthless because it hides important aspects of the real temperature curve. The El Ninos and La Ninas are homogenized when they are actual parts of the temperature curve and not something to be hidden. The entire instrumental temperature curve is a concatenation of alternating El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys, interrupted from time to time by oceanic irregularities, such as the super El Nino of 1998 and the twenty-first century high, or by rapid starts of warming and cooling as happened in the early twentieth century. These are breakpoints where physical changes occurred and they must not
be eliminated by computer processing. The worst part of that NASA curve is that it totally erases the true temperature of the satellite era. I don’t feel like explaining it all but from 1979 to 1997 the global mean temperature was constant. There were five El Nino peaks in that interval, and the middle one, the 1988 El Nino, is the one that Hansen called global warming peak in 1988. Six months later a La Nina dropped global temperature by 0.4 degrees Celsius. What he is now doing is showing that entire period as a smooth temperature rise called “late twentieth century warming.” it is a complete fake. Read my book and find out more.

Why wouldn’t continued input of solar energy at the same level be capable of raising temperatures on Earth ?

The only way a steady input of solar radiation is NOT capable of raising temperatures on Earth is if the Earth is at it’s blackbody maximum temperature for the insolation – just like letting the water heat on the gas till it boils without continually increasing the gas.

Of course, Dana Nuccitelli and his fellow nut jobs think this is waht they calculate when they falsely believe it is OK to hypothesise the Earth is flat with the Sun shining 24 hours a day at one quarter power – a simple hypothesis easily demonstrated as wrong by observing the Moon.

The minus 18 degrees C Earth radiating temperature is completely different to the heating under the noonday sun on a clear day at almost all latitudes on Earth from 75 N to 75 S.

The real blackbody temperature the solar radiation is capable of causing is never achieved on Earth because of water evaporating and the atmosphere convecting.

These simpletons continue to cling to their mistaken belief they have not made a simple fundamental error.

What is really funny though is one of SKS’s explanations about backradiation – they now claim it is the Sun that heats the Earth when trying to defend “backradiation” – of course conveniently forgetting that in all their other arguments they claim the Sun can’t be responsible.

The central assumption seems to be that Earth’s environmental system reacts quickly to changes. Inertia, “thermal” or otherwise, is discounted.

Agreed. Anyone who thinks that it is the trend rather than the level of the temperature forcing that causes warming must be assuming, at least implicitly, that the system has already equilibrated to the forcing. But the idea that our planet’s climate system, with its vast ocean heat sinks, equilibrates rapidly to changes in forcing is highly implausible and certainly requires at least an attempt at a justification. Neither Dana nor any of the “consensus” scientists who make these implicit assumptions provide any scientific support for their radical assumptions. The only time they offer any justification at all is when I press them on it. Near the end of my post on Isaac Held’s 2-box model of ocean equilibration I provided a short summary of the variety of off-the-cuff attempts to justify a rapid equilibrium assumptions that I have been offered. None of them stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.

GCR are un correlated with cloud cover. Any one of you can go get hourly data from CRN stations, and GCR data and see that for yourselves. No need to use a temperature record you dont trust, use CRN which Anthony endorses. No correlation. Zip, nada. And the argument about lags in temp is utterly beside the point. Just look for a correlation between GCR and cloud cover.
easy peasy. You wont find one.

@ Gary Pearse
I think you meant to say they should raise historical global avg temp back to 15c from current 14c they started using sometime in late 1998. I believe current “accepted” avg temp is something like 14.63c. Nice trick lower the avg temp and get global warming. But no they say it’s the trend that’s important. With a little more warming we’ll be back to normal.

The whole premise of what the models are based on needs to be examined.

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Katio1505 says:
December 28, 2012 at 5:34 pmSvensmark proposes that it is only the high energy cosmic rays that cause the cloud seeding. What energy range is used in the graph derived from Krivova and Solanki in the above figure?
The neutron monitor data [and the 10Be production] is mostly around 2 GeV. The GCRs that Svensmark talk about are more energetic than 10 GeV [which are only very weakly modulated by solar activity]. Some stations [e.g. Oulu] show an increase in low and medium energy GCRs which are not effective [most stations do not]. In addition, some stations [e.g. Oulu] have changed their geomagnetic latitude in such a way as to record more GCRs [Oulu is just near the edge of the polar region where the geomagnetic cutoff ends]. In any event all these changes are tiny.

Steve Mosher, GCR are very well correlated with ocean temps over geologic time. something like a 5C (memory failing me) range of equatorial ocean temps from min to max by Jan Veizer’s oxygen isotope proxies. And then there’s the Svensmark paper finding a nice swing of 7% of the amount of water in low level clouds over the oceans in the wake of strong Forbush decreases, just six days after the event.

What follows is complicated. My apologies for that but spin is only as complicated in its unraveling as it was in its raveling.

I followed the whole AR5 WG2 leak and backlash story quite closely. There was so much spin in Dana’s SkS post and in the comments there that I was stunned into inaction- I didn’t know where to start tackling this avalanche of absurdities. Some issues like the graphs have been raised here. I do regret not doing anything until now because there was one glaring problem with Dana’s reading of Rawls, or rather his lack of rigor in doing Rawls the courtesy of reading through all the evidence he was presenting. I haven’t seen this point made anywhere in the blogs or the media:

The evidence presented to support Rawls’ concerns about AR5 chapter 7 came from the original WUWT post announcing the leak. And not just the post itself but, crucially, the links embedded therein. I read that original post and considered it a responsibility to myself, without a readership of millions, to click the links in turn, getting the fullest picture possible of what Alec was saying. The most pertinent link in that post was highlighted “omitted variable fraud”. By not reading this link (or choosing not to cite the killer argument in it) Dana set in train a media frenzy that compounded one misunderstanding after another. His take was in turn pounced upon by one of the chapter 7 authors, Sherwood, as a way out of a tight fix. Sherwood surely must have suspected that Alec Rawls was saying more than Dana was letting on. Either that or Sherwood had actually read the cogent arguments of Rawls’ “omitted variable fraud” link and declined to disabuse all those reporters of their simplistic take on the issue.

This traduced Rawls’ real concerns behind the newly added sentence in AR5: the sentence was only the last straw, the admission that there must be some mechanism over and above the TSI affecting solar forcing. But if we look at this admission in the light of the undressing that Rawls gives the chapter 7 authors in the crucial link, (see capitalised heading below for details) we are in fact marrying that admission to their bald acknowledgments that there are papers pointing to the existence of a strong GCR/Climate correlation. Papers that are good enough to be cited in AR5 by apparently widely respected climatologists are good enough to be presented with the full import of all salient information they contain including an acknowledgment of the quality of the strong correlations they discovered. This was not done. Instead they cast over the GCR/cloud mechanism setting it up as the straw man to discredit these papers further and, because this was a wholly tangential argument, the credibilty of the three papers remains fully intact. This is why the admission in the newly added sentence (in AR5 WG2) is such a game-changer: it is an admission of a strong, yes strong, correlation between GCR and climate, the exact mechanism of which has not yet been established.

Any of the arguments we heard from Sherwood or Dana accusing Rawls of not reading to the end of the paragraph 4.3 which clearly states that they believe the additional solar forcing is insignificant, has to be viewed in the light of the above. Of course, they can reiterate it as much as they like, but it will only be believed if Sherwood can base it on a sound basis of evidence-based argument. Right now it is not, but what remains is his admission of the “existence of an amplifying mechanism” along with three papers cited by him (also an admission by their inclusion) showing a significant correlation between this amplification he admits to, and climate change. That is why Alec Rawls point is intellectually sound: two assertions, in fact two admissions by the chapter 7 authors that dovetail perfectly were crudely de-coupled by a straw man. When the straw man is banished, the two dovetailed admissions remain and they come from the pen of Sherwood and co.

It’s true that some of these points were bandied about over the course of the controversy but nowhere was it laid out as clearly and fully, all in one place, as in the “omitted variable fraud” link.

THE OMITTED VARIABLE FRAUD LINK IN MORE DETAIL

The “omitted variable fraud” link took me to a previous WUWT post by Rawls from February 2012. This post shadowed all the issues in the December leak post apart from one thing- he was referring to the Working Group 1 (WG1) draft copy whereas the December post was referring to the WG2 draft. The only difference between the two was the addition of the much-cited sentence that referred to data “implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism” in the later draft. In his February post, Rawls already appeared to be on the brink of leaking even the WG1 judging by his rightful indignation at the contents. But he wasn’t complaining about the new sentence because it wasn’t there yet. He was concerned that the authors of Chapter 7 were cleverly setting a gameplay whereby they acknowledged the existence of three papers showing “many empirical relationships” between GCR and climate and then, by sleight of hand, trashing them with a spurious tangential argument about the inconclusive results on GCR cloud seeding. This tangential argument was a straw man, set up to shoot down the validity of the three papers despite 1) the fact that they were primarily presenting “empirical relationships”, not hard-and-fast mechanisms 2) by extension they were not concerned with GCR alone 3) the fact that, despite showing only correlations, those correlations were very strong. Crucially, Rawls included quotes from the three papers showing the strength of the correlations. (He also described why this was “omitted variable fraud”- if you eliminate one culprit of GW you can attribute all the warming to your pet culprit, AGW. GCR was an omitted variable and omitted fraudulently).

Although Rawls touches on the three papers in his December post, he does not go into the detail of the February post on this one narrow topic. It is only by reading the February post (by following the “variable fraud” link) that the true subtlety of the AR5 chapter 7 authors’ sleight of hand is revealed. (I tried to capture it in essence above but it doesn’t do it any justice) In fact, as you continue reading the December post after reading the February post it is clear that Rawls is assuming you are up to speed on the issues regarding the February post. You can see him glossing, just a little, over this crucial aspect- and understandably because it isn’t glossing if his readers are up to speed with the facts that he directed them to only just a minute ago.

In conclusion, if Dana and, by extension, a bevy of international media outlets cannot be bothered to read through all the evidence presented to support somebody’s actions and arguments, they should publish precisely nothing. Either that, or publish the bare facts that a leak has been made and by who, along with a link to that person’s full explanation.

You did it twice. You conflated drinking of watered wine or beer at dinner with social drinking. Then you conflated a continuing raise in BAC with alcoholic stupor. Those Europeans (and Americans, the colonists were beer drinkers also) drinking throughout the day were getting drunker as they drank, just not very fast. Another point is that the lack of display of the typical signs of drunkenness is not a good indication that a person is not drunk. When I was still an alcoholic, I could ( and had) passed a police roadside sobriety check while being quite toasted. Some people have a very high tolerance to alcohol.

It takes a bit over an hour to eliminate the alcohol from one glass of beer, once it is in the system. It takes about a half hour for alcohol to get into the system. This is under optimum conditions. So my contention still stands, that a person drinking socially, even moderately will be getting drunker as the night wears on. Note that the initial point was in the context of social drinking.

Thank you again for your insight and your willingness to spend any time at SS and to respond as you have to certain critics of your thinking.

Tonight, for the first time, I visited SS. I was appalled. I expected a Public Relations Spin site and instead I found a Propaganda Machine (aptly named SS) specifically designed to find the best misleading alarmist argument possible to refute any logic employed anyone holding a challenging viewpoint about the models and their results. Talk about turning science on its head.

This site in its entirety seems focused on crushing and humiliating anyone with a challenge to their “science”. Science is based on skepticism. This site impales that and attempts to turn “Science” around to crush contrary thinking about a predetermined outcome.

Now you can see why Anthony puts SkS in it’s own “Unreliable” category. I would have been less charitable, categorizing them as “Deceptive Propagandists”.

Try posting some verifiable scientific facts there. Be as reasonable and polite as possible. But if your comment questions their catastrophic AGW narrative, it will never see the light of day.

It is a given that any blog that deletes wholesale all scientific views contrary to it’s narrative is being dishonest. SkS constantly deletes — or worse, mendaciously changes the meaning of — skeptics’ comments. SkS is run by pathological liars, and I include Nuccitelli along with Cook. The truth is not in them.

While skimming down through the comments, speed-reading to get a gist of what the many views were covering, (which is, in terms of scope, wonderful and amazing,) I skimmed through one comment and thought to myself, “that sounds like Leif Svalgaard.” So I put on the brakes and checked back to see the name, and sure enough it was he.

Leif, for a man who is excellent, when it comes to the narrow range of your expertise, you seem unaware of worlds outside your canyon.

The majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. Note however that there is three rather than one mechanism by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. I am currently investigating the physics and cosmological implications of the third mechanism and have found an extensive set of astronomical papers to support its existence and to define the mechanism.

if and when there is unexplained planetary cooling, I will have an in depth explanation of the third mechanism and can explain in detail what to expect next. There is a fourth mechanism.

The solar magnetic cycle affects cloud cover by three mechanisms 1) Changes to the solar heliosphere changes the number of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and the energy content of the GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere and 2) Electroscavenging where solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. The following is a summary. See this paper by Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate” for details, 3) abrupt changes to solar magnetic cycle which creates an imbalance of charge, the earth and other planets in the solar cycle attempt to reach equilibrium with the sun which results in an increase in volcanic activity and atmospheric activity (see massive new atmospheric spot, Saturn for example). (The third process also removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere.)

(See Tinsley and Yu’s review paper for a review of the first two mechanisms.)

General
The net effect of planetary clouds (all levels) is a reflection into space of 27.7 W/m2 (i.e. Clouds cool the planet by 27.7 W/m2.) [Hartmann, 1993] A mechanism that increases or decreases the total amount of planetary cloud cover will change the planet’s temperature.

Cloud Modulation by GCR
Microscope cloud nuclei are created by the electrons that are produced when the GCR strike the upper atmosphere. (GCR create muons. The muons reach lower levels in the atmosphere and create free electrons.) Svensmark has confirmed the processes in a lab test. Two additional tests are planned. One in a deep under ground mine, to test the process in the absence of natural muons and the second with CERN, where CERN will be used to create a known modulated artificial GCR source.

GCR Modulation by Solar Heliosphere
Pieces of magnetic flux from the sun are carried out into the solar heliosphere. The solar heliosphere stretches out about 20 light hours (near the orbit of Uranus.) The pieces of magnetic flux deflect GCR so that deflected GCR does not strike the earth. As the solar cycle progresses there is an observed change in the amount of Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) particles that strike the earth. Tracking the change in the number of GCR is a change in total planetary cloud cover. This is shown by satellite data in Palle’s paper and also in Tinsley and Yu’s paper (figure 2.1.).

Electroscavenging
High speed solar winds that are created by coronal holes (for example) remove cloud forming ions by the process of electroscavenging. The high speed solar wind creates a space charge in the earth’s ionosphere. The charge differential in the ionosphere creates a potential difference between the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere which removes cloud forming ions, from the lower atmosphere. (See figure 3.1 and figure 5.3 in Tinsley and Yu’s paper.) The ionosphere space charge is latitude specific (see figure 5.3.) Palle’s satellite analysis shows a significant reduction in clouds at the latitudes, as predicted by Tinsley and Yu.

The planetary cloud cover closely tracks GCR through two solar cycles. Around 1999 there is a gradual reduction in the earth’s total cloud cover and a reduction in the earth’s albedo based on the earthshine albedo data and satellite data. This reduction in cloud cover occurs when there is an increase in solar wind bursts due to coronal holes moving to the solar equator at the end of the solar cycle.

As noted in Enric Palle’s paper there is close correlation of GCR and planetary cloud cover for the period 1983 to 1994. Post 1994 the second mechanism electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions, therefore even though GCR is high there is no increase or reduction in clouds for the period. The third mechanism also removes cloud forming ions and due to the abrupt slow down in the solar magnetic cycle. The third mechanism is interesting as it fundamental to the explanation of a host of cosmological anomalies and paradoxes related to quasar and spiral galaxy formation and evolution with redshift. The same mechanism explains the peculiar axial ejection of blue stragglers and the equatorial ejection of blue stragglers from the Milky Way. The same mechanism explains the evolution of bulgeless spiral disc galaxies and the formation of bars in spiral disc galaxies. The same mechanism explains why quasar periodic variance doe not exhibit time dilation with redshift, why quasar spectrum does not exhibit evolution of metallicity with redshift, explains why there is an unexplained gradual reduction of maximum quasar luminosity with redshift and so on. The basic mechanism is due to what happens when very, very, large objects collapse.

The correlation between annual mean low cloud and the ionization level at 2 km altitude exceeds the 99% significance level over mid-latitude oceans and globally over the period 1983–1994.

The second process, considered by Tinsley and Yu (2003), namely electroscavenging, depends on the action of the global electrical circuit (see review by Rycroft et al. (2000)). The transport of charge by rapidly rising convective currents in the tropics and over continental land masses leads to a _200 kV positive charge of the ionosphere compared to Earth. This large voltage difference, in turn, necessitates a return current which must pass through the regions of the atmosphere where clouds are formed. As cosmic rays are the principal agent of ionization in the atmosphere above 1 km altitude, any modulation of the GCR flux due to solar activity is likely to affect the transport of charge to complete the global electrical circuit. Tinsley and Yu (2003) discuss how the build up of electrostatic charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds could affect the scavenging of ice forming nuclei (IFN) and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) by droplets, and how this can lead to greater rates of precipitation and a reduction in cloud cover. They find that the electroscavenging process is likely to be more important over oceanic rather than continental regions and that it leads to a positive correlation between clouds and cosmic rays at higher latitudes and a negative correlation at low latitudes. Thus the electroscavenging process can explain several of the most striking features of Fig. 5, namely: (1) the peak in significant positive correlations at latitudes around 50 degrees North and South (Fig. 5a); (2) the tendency for a less significant but nonetheless evident trend to negative correlation coefficients at low latitudes (Fig. 5a); and (3) the location of the peak in correlation over one of the principal oceans, namely over the North and South Atlantic (Fig. 5c).

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

“It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by the sunspot index are due to the increased number of high speed streams of solar wind on the decreasing phase and the minimum of sunspot in the last decade.”

It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868-1890 to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, … According to Echer et al (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes (my comment: For example coronal hole 254 that produced the Dec 16, 2006 peak in solar wind, during a sun spot minimum, see attached link to Solar Observation Data), seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by sunspot number. In figure 6 long term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataga 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p< 0.01."

Caleb says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:39 pmLeif, for a man who is excellent, when it comes to the narrow range of your expertise, you seem unaware of worlds outside your canyon.
When people come into my canyon I tell them the facts. And how do you justify to state that my range of expertise is ‘narrow’? as compared to many commenters here who have no expertise.

As per usual, the main characters in the shadow-debate here completely miss the central point. Alec Rawls is arguing that there is some (unknown) amplification factor that increases the impact of changes in the level of solar activity on the Earth’s climate. It is this claim that people should be addressing.

It’s as though there is a fight between Jo Frasier and Mohammad Ali and Jo has jumped out of the ring and beating the living-%$#782 out of one of the spectators in the back row.

Thanks to Scute for reading through the links and for coming, it seems, to a real understanding of the issues I have tried to raise. Just one correction: both my February comments on the First Order Draft of AR5 and my recent comments on the SOD of AR5 are to the Working Group 1 part of the report (“The Scientific Basis”).

Alec Rawls said of Dana’s view of the physics involved: [Dana’s view is that] If you leave a pot of water on a steady flame it won’t heat. If you want to heat the water you have to keep turning the flame up….. ”

Very nice analogy …. and Dana has to acknowledge this is one freaking big pot of water……. and that he keeps telling how small is the solar forcing, but posits a theory of instant response.

This is why Pielke Sr. also argued that global warming “is best diagnosed by changes in upper ocean heat content”. We don’t quite agree — we believe that global warming is best diagnosed by considering all warming measurements including both surface warming and ocean heat content,

So the basic data, warmed, pruned, and adjusted; with added TOBS and ‘wrong way UHI’ and an “MMTS cooling bias adjustment” that was really locking in place an ‘aging paint on Stevenson Screens false warming” all bundled in, gets run through GIStemp to make the above basic “pasteurized data food product”.

Yet even that isn’t enough. They put an 11 year average on it. That means the last 11 years of data don’t show the recent trend correctly. “Smoothing” hides inflection points, especially at the ends. ( A simple moving average worse than most, but we don’t know what method was used).

Personally, I’ll take the snow cover as my guide. As of now, we’ve got more % snow cover in the USA than last year and we’ve only just started winter.

doesn’t even have the latest on it (two days old right now) and we’re already “coloring outside the lines”…

So that temperature line on the graph is bogus at every possible step.

(And no, I’m not blaming you Alec! You are just using the graph they did… which gives us ‘target practice’ ;-)

So given that both lines are bogus on the graph, I’m not surprised their arguments are broken too…

BTW: I fully followed the argument and the drinking analogy. It is correct. We need to drop below the level of balance to see reduction. For booze, it’s about “one drink / hour” (depends on the person, though) and it only changes how fast you get drunk when over that 1/hr. This is what is taught in traffic school (don’t ask ;-) and I’ve tested it and proven it ( 6 pack fast is effective, 6 pack 1 / hour does nothing… 3/ hour is intermediate…)

The extreme AGW paradigm pushers have painted themselves into a corner. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. There is smoking gun evidence that the sun is a serial climate changer. The answer to how the sun serially changes climate is more complicated and interesting than changes to the solar heliosphere that modulate GCR.

I have seen no discussion electroscavenging in the general media or at Real Climate, except for my postings.

There is peer reviewed published papers concerning a reduction in planetary cloud cover that correlates with the 20th century warming. The questions are: 1) Why was there a reduction in planetary cover (see below for details) and 2) will the cloud cover return (yes).

Note the reduction in cloud cover is at the same latitude as predicted by Tinsley’s electroscavenging mechanism. (The continuation of the suppression of cloud cover – post 2006 – is due to a third mechanism.)

The following is another paper by Tinsley that explains the electroscavenging mechanism. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere. The space charge differential removes cloud forming ions.

The electroscavenging mechanism explains why there was a reduction in planetary clouds when GCR has high, as there were solar wind bursts during the declining period of the solar cycle caused by coronal holes on the solar surface.

Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000

All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate

Look at figure 12 in the attached which shows the number of solar magnetic storms per year, from 1865 to present and the solar cycle number. There is a roughly 20 times increase in the number of magnetic storms at the end of the solar cycles, when comparing the 20th century to the 19th century. It is not just the number, but the magnitude of the solar storms.

Once again about global warming and solar activity
K. Georgieva1, C. Bianchi2 and B. Kirov1

The real terrestrial impact of the different solar drivers depends not only on the average
geoeffectiveness of a single event but also on the number of events. Figure 5 presents the
yearly number of CHs, CMEs and MCs in the period 1992-2002. On the descending phase
of the sunspot cycle, the greatest part of high speed solar wind streams affecting the Earth comes from coronal holes (Figure 5), in this period their speed is higher than the speed of the solar wind originating from other regions, and their geoeffectiveness is the highest. Therefore, when speaking about the influence Fig. 4. Solar cycle variations of the average geoeffectiveness of solar wind from CHs, MCs and CMEs. Fig. 5. Yearly number of CHs, MCs and CMEs of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity.

The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have
increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number. In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.

William says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:45 pmThe majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover.
That and all the rest fly in the face of the fact that solar modulation has not had any long-term trend the past 300 years.

Ninderthana says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:53 pmAs per usual, the main characters in the shadow-debate here completely miss the central point. Alec Rawls is arguing that there is some (unknown) amplification factor that increases the impact of changes in the level of solar activity on the Earth’s climate.
Since solar activity has not had any long-term trend the past 300 years, then Earth’s climate would not have either.

William says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:45 pmSee this paper by Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu
Tinsley partially relies on an effect [the Wilcox effect] of which I was a co-discoverer. This effect has long been discredited and is no longer considered valid by the [still living] discoverers.

The solar heliosphere stretches out about 20 light hours (near the orbit of Uranus.)
No, it stretches five times farther.

The Svensmark cosmic ray-temperature link ( to the extent that there may be one), is a bit more complex than say just in phase or out of phase. Some have mentioned an 11 year variability, as if the effect was solar cycle linkage. If solar magnetism reverses each 11 years, while earth magnetism doesn’t, the resultant near earth magnetic field, would have some sort of 22 year cyclic variation. Since CRs result in charged particle showers, such particles can be steered by the net field, resulting in a redistribution from equator to poles (magnetic), and with more moisture in the tropics, than the polar regions, any effect of cloud formation, would be more effective if charged particles aren’t routed to the magnetic polar regions (by spiralling around the field lines).

So magnetic redistribution of CR charged particles, might have more effect than simple change in cr counts.

Of course it woult take actual data to determine if this is another butterfly wing effect, or is of observable magnitude.

George E. Smith says:
December 28, 2012 at 9:51 pmthe resultant near earth magnetic field, would have some sort of 22 year cyclic variation.
It does, but not the way you think. The polarity change [at solar maximum] introduces a slight variation of the SHAPE of the solar modulation. You can see that here: http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm
Scroll to the last page and look at the red curve for Hermanus. You might notice that every other peak is sharp, while the intervening peaks are broader. The reason for this is well-understood and has to do with a polarity-dependent drift of GCRs.

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

(Sorry this link does not copy. Google “Once again about global warming and solar activity” and have a look at the paper.)

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of
solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

There are published papers from specialists that support the assertion that the sun was unusually active in the later part of the 20th century and there are published papers to support the electroscavening mechanism. (There is an observed change in cloud cover and precipitation changes.)

It is natural for there to be disagreement among specialists. It is very common for one side to believe it is impossible for the other side to be correct.

As it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted we can resolve this discussion by direct observation rather than by models or predictions. I would most certainly be interested in your comments concerning anomalous solar observations which I would expect should start in 2013.

The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth’s magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun’s properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.

5. The Global Electric Circuit and Electroscavenging
5a. Modulation of Jz in the global circuit.
The global electric circuit was illustrated pictorially in Figure 3.1, and a schematic circuit diagram is given in Figure 5.1. General properties of the circuit have been reviewed by Bering et al. [1998[. Earlier comprehensive reviews have been given by NAS [1986] and Israël [1973]. The polar potential pattern is superimposed on the thunderstorm-generated potentials. In a given high latitude region the overhead ionospheric potential, Vi is the sum of the thunderstorm-generated potential and the superimposed magnetosphere-ionosphere generated potential for that geomagnetic latitude and geomagnetic local time. During magnetic storms the changes in Vi from the mean can be as high as 30% within regions extending up to 30ｰof latitude out from the geomagnetic poles [Tinsley et al.1998].

As indicated in Figure 5.1, horizontal potential differences of order 100 kV are generated, high on the dawn side and low on the dusk side, producing corresponding changes in Vi and Jz. The dawn-dusk potential difference has a strong dependency on the product of the solar wind velocity, vsw, and the Bz(GSM) north-south solar wind magnetic field component [Boyle et al., 1997].

http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/2045/2009/angeo-27-2045-2009.pdf
On the long term change in the geomagnetic activity during the 20th century
The analysis of the aa index series presented in this paper clearly shows that during the last century (1900 to 2000) the number of quiet days (Aa<20 nT) drastically diminished from a mean annual value greater than 270 days per year at the end of the nineteenth century to a mean value of 160 quiet days per year one hundred years later. This decrease is mainly due to the decrease of the number of very quiet days (Aa<13 nT). We show that the so-evidenced decrease in the number of quiet days cannot be accounted for by drift in the aa baseline resulting in a systematic underestimation of aa during the first quarter of the century: a 2–
3 nT overestimation in the aa increase during the 20th century would lead to a 20–40% overestimation in the decrease of the number of quiet days during the same period.

The quiet days and very quiet days correspond to periods during which the Earth encounters slow solar wind streams flowing in the heliosheet during the period where the solar magnetic field has a dipolar geometry. Therefore, the observed change in the number of quiet days is the signature of a long term evolution of the solar coronal field topology. It may be interpreted in terms of an increase in the magnitude of the solar dipole, the associated decrease of the heliosheet thickness accounting for the observed decrease in the number of quiet days.

The Unique Solution Syndrome: there is one and only one “correct” interpretation to any observation. All others, by definition, must be wrong. As soon as you find “an” answer that suffices, your job is finished.

Geologists know that there are many ways to account for a series of observations that are bound by a common rule in the general sense, but uniquely determined by non-common details in the specific. The barrier island develops by long-shore deposition of sands originating from an upstream river source in general, but it develops HERE, for THIS LENGTH and FOR THIS LONG and with THIS SHAPE because the shelf-shore has a certain pattern, and the winter winds comes from a certain direction for a certain length of time, etc. etc. We create an answer as best we can as to exactly how it works, because the Corps of Engineers and others need to understand what to expect in the future, but what we really do is create an answer that is internally consistent with the facts and theories we have.

We know there are other, similarly sufficient answers: that is why each generation of geologists does not put out of work the following generation of geologists. Our answers often are like the suit that is said to fit where it touches: good-looking and useful from the angle we are looking from today, but not so much from where we are, tomorrow.

Geology is most correct in the general sense, less correct in its details. The geologist knows this even though he is paid to make a specific statement today. Climate science, in contrast, is held as a science with a unique solution to any situation, more of an engineering study.

The details are what determine the characteristics of the outcome in geology. If you don`t have the details right you don`t have a mine or an oil field where you dig. It looks the same with climatology, but you`d never know that from the Global Warming fiasco.

The really weird thing about climatology as practiced by the IPCC is that the science is said to be settled, so what happens is really an engineering project to determine, but the range of outcomes by 2100 has not reduced in the last 24 years of study. If you were to use even a probability function and then compare it to observation, you would feel it necessary to change the probability distribution after 24 years. Even if the change was to admit you didn`t KNOW what the probability distribution should be.

One of my favourite stories from popular science history is about an incident that took place during World War 2. At some point in ’42 or 43, the British, who’s pioneering use of radar had saved them from the Luftwaffe in 1940 got an awful scare when one morning their screens showed nothing but fuzz. For the first time since the outbreak of war they were effectively blinded. Certain that the Germans had invented a jamming device they immediately got their finest boffins on the job an alerted their coastal defences to expect a massive air attack.
It was mid morning before an astute technician noticed that the source of interference was steadily climbing into the sky…by lunchtime, to their immense relief, they realised that its source was The Sun!
This was one of the first times in history that the sun’s output had been detected by radio sensitive equipment.
So you can understand now why it is that I see a chart recording Cosmic Ray Activity starting in 1880!!!! I just feel like laughing

I think it is possible for me to estimate that all observed warming is natural or very nearly completely natural. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.
Consider the fact that we really do not have a global temp. record to speak of since at least around 1925. In those days they just manufactured thermometers, never realizing that after time they need to be re-calibrated…..I have challenged anyone to bring me the calibration certificates of thermometers used in weather stations from before that time, with no response.
This means that if we look at my global sine wave chart above for energy in
(not to be confused with energy-out)

we must rather look at the absolute value of the increase in the heat coming through the top of the atmosphere from 1927 (85 years ago) until 1950. This means an increase of ca. 0.037/2 (roughly integrated) x 23 = 0.43 degrees K.
In the next period from 1950 to 1995, when records were firmly established we are seeing the warming that everyone started to fear, namely 0.037/2 (roughly integrated) x 45 = 0.83 degrees K. From 1995 until 2012 it looks we went down on the maxima by ca. 0.037/2 x 17 = 0.31

So I have 0.43 + 0.83 – 0.31= 0.95 degrees K up on the maxima since 1927
I have had a look now at CET maxima and found it rising by 0.0105 degree K per annum from 1927 – 2012. A total of 0.89 K from 1927 which again confirms the correctness of my global estimate.
I also had a look now at the increase of CET means and found it increasing by 0.0088 degree C per annum since 1927. This means the ratio of maxima/means is therefore estimated as 1.19.

Climate’s Natural Variability appear to be a direct consequence of the interaction between the Solar magnetic cycles and the geomagnetic input; results of my finding are briefly summarised her:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NV.htm
Dr. Svalgaard in the past has vehemently denied any scientific validity to the above finding, and I assume he will do so in the foreseeable future.
It is pointless going over the same ground again, the most recent exchange can be found on the Haigh-Anxiety

William says:
December 28, 2012 at 11:19 pmIt is natural for there to be disagreement among specialists. It is very common for one side to believe it is impossible for the other side to be correct.
The papers you refer to are already out-of-date. This is a rapidly developing area of research. Both the sunspot number and the Ak-index [extension of the Aa-index] are subject to updates and revision. I am leader of a team of specialists examining the evidence http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf

Charles Gerard Nelson says:
December 28, 2012 at 11:43 pmSo you can understand now why it is that I see a chart recording Cosmic Ray Activity starting in 1880!!!! I just feel like laughing
You shouldn’t. Cosmic Ray Activity create radioactive isotopes (Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10] which can be found in tree rings and ice cores. The data goes back more than 10,000 years.
Here is how it is done: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Beer-GCRs.pdf

Leif claims (his usual line):
“since solar activity has not had any long-term trend the past 300 years, then Earth’s climate would not have either.”

Yet there is a wealth of research that does show a link. For example:
De Jager, C. and Duhau, S. The variable solar dynamo and the forecast of solar activity;
effects on terrestrial surface temperature; in J. M. Cossia (ed), Proceedings of the global
warming in the 21th century. NOVA science publishers, Hauppauge, NY, 2010; 77.

They concluded: “We studied the relation between average terrestrial surface temperature and solar variability for the period 1610 – 1970. During this period the average terrestrial surface temperatures are correlated both with the equatorial as well as the polar solar magnetic field components. The correlation with the equatorial field can fully be explained. It is due to the gradual increase of the Total Solar irradiance and the consequent feedback by evaporated gases. The explanation of the polar correlation is still open.”

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 1:06 amClimate’s Natural Variability appear to be a direct consequence of the interaction between the Solar magnetic cycles and the geomagnetic input […]
Dr. Svalgaard in the past has vehemently denied any scientific validity to the above finding, and I assume he will do so in the foreseeable future.
You bet, and much longer than the ‘foreseeable future’.

Chris Schoneveld says:
December 29, 2012 at 1:30 am“since solar activity has not had any long-term trend the past 300 years, then Earth’s climate would not have either.”
Yet there is a wealth of research that does show a link.
Which are based on obsolete datasets of solar activity. Before you make such conclusions, it might be a good idea to examine the evidence: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf

We have ocean currents, plate tectonics, volcanoes, cloud cover, winds, and a whole universe to effect us. There are so many variables it would be nearly impossible for one study of science to explain it with a single graph. Worse we seem to have tossed away major mechanisms, for scientific mysticism. We aren’t the only planet in the system experiencing change. Instead of “we don’t know why”, what we hear is “It has to be because I say so” or worse.. “my model or my corrected data says so.” That is not science. Science is fluid and changing, as man knows more, gets closer, observes directly, science progresses. If science becomes consensus, it becomes stagnant.

I do a lot of reading and I keep an open mind.. but nothing turns me away faster then an author that claims to absolutely know anything and models compared to the actual eco system of this planet are like pong on the first computers.. entertaining but primitive. Humans still don’t know how to make a truly closed ecosystem. All of those models have failed.

It is an interesting time, our sun is quiet, our magnetic field is supposedly weakening, and our poles are moving pretty quickly, but even those may have patterns they follow. We wobble after all. Meanwhile the world did not end.. AGAIN.. but maybe we again have overlooked the subtlety of the universe ( the show behind the sun) because we were too busy looking at the end of worlders throwing a fit in the street. We must keep letting our media, politicians and consensus scientists know that we aren’t playing their game anymore. Maybe it will sink in someday.

Right after the title “Three blind mice” you call Mr. Nuccitelli Mr. Nutticelli which comes to my mind too when I read his stuff, but since we sceptics are nice people, you should correct that. Regards from the Swiss mountains, Fred

Yes, I see you have taken up the summer solstice and daily temperature heat lags after a solar radiation peak, as well as the Usoskin paper, I blogged on this on skeptical science (sic) a few years ago, but they didn’t get it of course. Keep at it, a few honest consensus physicists will come out of the woodwork to politely inform them of their gross error sooner or later.

leif svalgaard says
You bet, and much longer than the ‘foreseeable future’.
henry says
To explain weather cycles, before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly. See here.http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)
Please note: indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain).
Now put my sine wave next to those dates?http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, i.e. O3, HxOx and NxOx, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.
Hope this helps a few people.

the dates are important: ozone started declining in 1951 and started rising in 1995
If Leif or somebody can help to correlate that with the observed switch?

Leif writes “The ‘modern maximum’ is an artifact in the sunspot data series.”

Sunspots may be a proxy for TSI but they’re not a proxy for spectral variance. And we now know spectral variance is much greater than first assumed. There is still much we still dont know about how the sun affects our climate.

As to Mosher’s belief that GCRs have no correlation on cloud cover, do you really think a Forbush event is enough to capture that correlation (or lack thereof)? They only last a few days and our cloud data is pretty dodgy.

This is where we have common ground. “Something is happening with the Sun”.

I believe we are all going to have an opportunity to observe how the sun causes the cyclic Heinrich events. As others have noted for example Gerald Bond there are massive cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with the cyclic Heinrich events.There must be a physical explanation for the massive cosmogenic isotope changes, the geomagnetic field changes, and the abrupt cooling that all correlate with the cyclic Heinrich events.

If I understand the mechanisms the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which explains why Svensmark’s mechanism (High GCR, creates muons in the upper atmosphere, the muons in turn create ions, which in turn results in an increased in low level clouds at specific latitudes and a reduction in the formation of cirrus clouds. See Tinsley’s paper for details. An increase in low level clouds cools the planet as does a reduction of high latitude cirrus clouds. The cirrus clouds warm the high latitude regions by the greenhouse effect particularly during the winter) and the electroscavening mechanism appears to no longer be functioning.

Electroscavenging is the name Tinsley and others have given for a mechanism by which solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions.

The electroscavenging mechanism is related to Sprites which form at very high altitudes.

Leif’s power point.

http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
Slide 19
“Something is happening with the Sun”
“We don’t know what causes this, but sunspots are becoming more difficult to see or not forming as they used to. There is speculation that this may be what a Maunder-type minimum looks like: magnetic fields still present [cosmic rays still modulated], but just not forming spots. If so, exciting times are ahead.”

William:
As note in the power point presentation, Livingston and Penn have found the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is declining.

Slide 20
“Sun is perhaps entering a new very low activity Regime
•Fewer sunspots for given F10.7 flux
•Fewer sunspots for given Magnetic Plage Index
•Fewer spots per group
•Fewer small spots
•Less magnetic field per spot
•These changes have been progressive and accelerating since ~1990
•If continuing => possible Maunder Minimum”

William: If the sun causes Heinrich events and the sun is entering the conditions that cause a Heinrich event now, the sun is not entering a Maunder minimum. This will be a true interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. The solar cycle magnetic cycle continued to function during the Maunder minimum (1645 and continuing to about 1715).

Introduction
Red sprites and blue jets are upper atmospheric optical phenomena associated with thunderstorms that have only recently been documented using low light level television technology.

The first images of a sprite were accidently obtained in 1989 (Franz et al., 1990). Beginning in 1990, about twenty images have been obtained from the space shuttle (Vaughan et al., 1992; Boeck et al., 1994).

Since then, video sequences of well over a thousand sprites have been captured. These include measurements from the ground ( Lyons, 1994; Winckler, 1995) and from aircraft (Sentman and Wescott, 1993; Sentman et al., 1995).

Numerous images have also been obtained from aircraft of blue jets ( Wescott et al., 1995), also a previously unrecorded form of optical activity above thunderstorms. Blue jets appear to emerge directly from the tops of clouds and shoot upward in narrow cones through the stratosphere. Their upward speed has been measured to be about 100 km per second.

Anecdotal reports of “rocket-like” and other optical emissions above thunderstorms go back more than a century (Lyons, 1994), and there have been several pilot reports of similar phenomena (Vaughan and Vonnegut, 1989). Possibly associated gamma ray bursts and TIPPS have also recently reported. Together, these phenomena suggest that thunderstorms exert a much greater influence on the middle and upper atmospheres than was previously suspected.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=29510
Based on the observations, sprites normally begin almost 50 miles high as downward-moving “streamers” that appear spontaneously or at the bottom of a halo — diffuse flashes of light often associated with sprites. The streamers then branch out as they move down. At the same time, a brighter column of light expands both up and down from the starting point, followed by bright streamers that shoot higher into the sky.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8733
“The whole structure develops a lot in one millisecond. So by going with the faster video we really see all the pieces and how they develop in time,” says Steven Cummer, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering.
And with so much energy being pumped into a small region, Cummer says sprites may drive atmospheric chemistry that does not normally occur. “The significance at this point lies in what chemical effects these [sprites] may have on the upper atmosphere,” Cummer told New Scientist. The researchers say sprites typically begin at an altitude of about 50 miles (80 kilometres) in the sky in single spots where the electric field creates a spark. Those produce falling “streamers” that branch out as they fall. Much brighter, thicker channels follow, expanding upward from the original spots.

Leif, Could you please pointy out the error in the following train of logic?

1. Leif says:
“Cosmic Ray activity create radioactive isotopes (Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10] which can be found in tree rings and ice cores. The data goes back more than 10,000 years.
Here is how it is done: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Beer-GCRs.pdf ”

2. Leif acknowledges that Be10 and C14 can be used as proxies for determining long-term changes in the level of solar activity.

Climate’s Natural Variability is a direct consequence of the interaction between the Solar magnetic cycles and the geomagnetic input (backed by data from NOAA, SIDC and ETHZ).

– 21.3 years (Hale cycle) period is the primary component in the both solar and Earth magnetic variability– 16.1 years period is specific to the Earth system, the cause is the Earth’s core-crust internal resonance (possibly triggered by the Hale cycle) equal to the propagation time in either direction (ref: Hide & Dickey) .
16 year period is the strongest component in the Arctic temperature spectrum, while on the opposite side in the Antarctic, its second harmonic (about 8 years) equals the Antarctic’s Circumpolar Wave’s period of oscillation (temperature cycles).
– Two other major ‘components’ the ENSO and AMO are products of cross-modulation.

Ninderthana says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:34 am
4. Leif dismisses the observational evidence showing a link between climate systems here on tthe Earth and long-term variations in the level of solar activity.
=========
By similar logic, scientists have not discovered a mechanism by which gravity can affect matter. Until scientists discover such a mechanism it is not possible for gravity to affect matter.

We know the sun’s magnetic fields and solar wind are variable. Much more variable than TSI. We know that Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 are good proxies for climate, and that these isotopes are not a result of TSI. Rather they are formed by the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind.

We do not yet know the mechanism by which the sun determines earth’s climate, but we certainly know from the paleo records that it does. To argue that we need a mechanism before we can attribute cause and effect is nonsense.

What is the mechanism underlying Time? What causes time to move? Why is the rate of time affected by motion and acceleration? What is the mechanism?

Gravity and Time. Fundamental aspects of science. Both of which have no known mechanism. Why do scientists not argue that these cannot be affecting the earth? Isn’t this the argument behind climate science? If we don’t know the mechanism, then the sun cannot be affecting the earth’s climate.

ferd berple says
We know the sun’s magnetic fields and solar wind are variable. Much more variable than TSI

henry says
It is not the variation in the TSI as such; it seems (to me) it is the variation in the FUV and/or EUV that causes the differences in the concentration of the ozone and others that affect the energy coming in.

William says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:25 amIf I understand the mechanisms the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
What does that mean? As I understand the mechanisms the solar magnetic cycle behaves normally, no ‘interruption’ [depending on what you mean by that]

ferd berple says:
December 29, 2012 at 7:26 amWe know the sun’s magnetic fields and solar wind are variable.
There has been no long-term trend in sun’s magnetic field and solar wind since the 1830s.

We know that Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 are good proxies for climate
Climate influences the deposition of 14C and 10Be, so there is some correlation there, but it goes in the opposite direction.

and that these isotopes are not a result of TSI. Rather they are formed by the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind.
Variations in the solar wind AND in TSI are caused by the Sun’s magnetic field.

Someone should be taking screen shots over at SS. Ron King is asking pertinent questions addressed to Dana’s post http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1791. If SS follows its normal behavior, Mr. King will soon be banned and his posts modified.

Leif, your (peer reviewed?) poster session falsifies all the research that have shown a correlation between solar activity and climate? And I was supposed to have had examined THE evidence that you presented 4 weeks ago? Are you serious?

HenryP says:
December 29, 2012 at 8:11 amIt is not the variation in the TSI as such; it seems (to me) it is the variation in the FUV and/or EUV that causes the differences in the concentration of the ozone
The UV creates the ionosphere. Movement of this conduction layer [due to the day-night cycle] results in a dynamo electrical current. The magnetic effect from that current can be measured on the ground [George Graham discovered this in 1722] and those magnetic effects have been measured ever since. The result is that there has been no long-term change in FUV since 1722.

Ninderthana says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:34 amLeif, Could you please pointy out the error in the following train of logic?
E.g. the Kodera paper states that the effects are not due to solar radiative forcing, but “The present analysis demonstrated that the regional impact of Indian Ocean is related to stratospheric variation”.

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 6:55 am– 21.3 years (Hale cycle) period is the primary component in the both solar and Earth magnetic variability
Solar activity [by any of the many measures] does not have a ~21 year cycle. The period is ~11 years. Your ‘Hale cycle’ is made up by putting a negative sign on every other 11-yr cycle. This is unphysical.

Chris Schoneveld says:
December 29, 2012 at 8:54 amLeif, your (peer reviewed?) poster session falsifies all the research that have shown a correlation between solar activity and climate? And I was supposed to have had examined THE evidence that you presented 4 weeks ago? Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious.

A standard simplified model for temperature of an object heated by an external forcing is

dT/dt = -T/tau + F

where T is temperature, tau is a thermal time constant, and F is the forcing. It is, of course, a natural characteristic of this equation that the temperature will continue to rise when the forcing levels out for short intervals relative to tau.

If one is looking at the system over a very short timeline relative to tau, the equation becomes approximately

dT/dt := F

Various commenters on these boards over the years have pointed out that, if you integrate various solar indices, you get a very clear and pronounced correlation between Earthly temperatures and solar activity. So, you might consider performing such a comparison in your plot at the top of this article, using a model of the form

dT/dt = k*(CRC – CRC_eq)

where CRC is the cosmic ray count, CRC_eq is an equilibrium count to be determined, and k is a coupling constant, also TBD. The effect of solar forcing is cumulative across timelines which could easily be as long as centuries, and that is where the simpleminded analyses of Messrs. Nuccitelli, Sherwood, et al. go astray.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 9:26 am
vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 6:55 am
– 21.3 years (Hale cycle) period is the primary component in the both solar and Earth magnetic variability
Solar activity [by any of the many measures] does not have a ~21 year cycle. The period is ~11 years. Your ‘Hale cycle’ is made up by putting a negative sign on every other 11-yr cycle. This is unphysical.
…………….
No it is not.
The Earth’s magnetic field differentiates between odd and even cycles.
How do we know that?
By different shape of neutron count during the even cycles to the shape of the NC for the odd cycles.
Anyway, one can use SSN as proxy for solar polar field, since there are only three cycles of the PF available.
Your argument is invalid

Bart says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:05 amVarious commenters on these boards over the years have pointed out that, if you integrate various solar indices
Integration involves an interval over which the integral is to be taken. What is that interval?
And if the values you integrate are wrong to begin with, what does that do to the result?

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:09 amThe Earth’s magnetic field differentiates between odd and even cycles. How do we know that? By different shape of neutron count during the even cycles to the shape of the NC for the odd cycles
No, that difference comes from a difference in the incoming flux of cosmic rays. Has nothing to do with the Earth.

Bart says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:09 amIt isn’t his “Hale Cycle”, it is Hale’s. Hence the name. See how that works?
Hale’s cycle is not in solar activity. Vuk makes up an artificial cycle by putting a sign on the SSN alternating between cycles. So, no, I don’t see how that works. Explain it to me.

When one writes that temperatures will continue to rise without further increase in the rate of heating it implies that the thing being heated did not reach an equilibrium temperature with any of the previous rates of heating. The question then becomes, how long will it be before an equilibrium temperature is reached. Alec implies that it might be a very long time, but I do not believe that to be the case. Since oceans cover so much of the earth surface, consider the incoming solar UV-VIS that reaches an ocean surface. Roughly half of this is absorbed within the first 25 meters depth and nearly all of the rest is absorbed by 100 meters. Photosynthesizing life is essentially absent at greater depths. The upper 25 meters is a well stirred wave zone and it has about 10 times the heat storage capacity of the earth atmosphere. The temperature of this zone will follow the incoming solar flux with a thermal time constant of about 225 days. Significant temperature changes can occur quickly within this period, as evidenced by the fact that seasonal temperature variations are still very much present at depths of 25 meters.

If, for some reason, solar flux would increase at a steady rate, then in approximately 3 time constant periods, or about 1.8 years, the surface temperature will rise steadily at the same rate as the solar heating increase. Conversely, if the solar flux were then to be held constant, the surface temperature would only rise for another 1.8 years before stabilizing.

The thermal relaxation time for greater depths is longer. At a depth of about 100 meters, the thermal relaxation time is close to 3 years, and it would take three times this, or about 9 years for these lower depths to fully adjust to changes in the solar flux. This is likely the reason that surface temperatures seem to be correlated with the length of previous solar cycles. However, the changes at depths of 100 meters or more are largely accomplished without being manifest at the surface except for the heat transported by ocean currents. For example, water at 100 meters depth in the tropics can be transported to polar regions where it is capable of contributing to atmospheric warming there. For complete equilibration, it should be clear that the circulation time of the ocean currents is part of the adjustment period and this is reflected in some of the multi-decade time scale variations of ocean surface temperatures.

But the bottom line is that ocean surface temperatures mostly adjust very quickly to solar flux changes.

The following comments are concerned with the “global temperature” part of the graph

1/ Where are the error bars that show both the statistical and systematic uncertainty? The graphs as presented imply that “global temperature” is known to +/- 0.01C [line thickness] which is nonsensical.

2/ Given that thermometers back in 1890 would do well to be able to measure temperature to +/- 0.5C, how is global temperature from back then apparently known to far better than +/- 0.1C? Even today the best instrumented weather station thermometers have a resolution and accuracy of about +/- 0.1C.

Such graphs and claims require a suspension of belief in measurement and error analysis.

The above bit about missing statistical and systematic error bars also applies to the cosmic ray part of the plot.

3/ Is “global temperature” a physically meaningful derived quantity?
Consider several thousand temperature measurement sites. Divide the surface of the earth into cells – volumes – such that one of the measurement sites is at each centre of a cell. The temperature measured at each site is only representative of the associated cell if and only if the volume is in local thermodynamic equilibrium [temperature is only defined for a system at thermodynamic equilibrium].
As the atmospheric is a dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium and the cells are far to large to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium, the temperature measured at the site centred in cell is not representative.

So deriving a measure called “global temperature” is a dubious exercise at best.
I would argue that it is a meaningless derived quantity and arguments about it are spurious.

leifsvalgaard says
The result is that there has been no long-term change in FUV since 1722.

henry says
there are various reports I can find again SHOWING that the variation in FUV/EUV is considerable

the reactions are
uv + O2 => O3
uv + OH => HxOx
uv + NO => NxOx

so, obviously, a change in the distribution of TSI towards more uv
causes more O3, more HxOx and more NxOx

I remember that last time I calculated for you that Trenberth showed that O3 on its own backradiates ca. 25% of all that is being back radiated,
but he (Trenberth) forgot (or never realized) the HxOx and NxOx

Henry says
Please note: indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain).

Henry says
please understand what I am saying. I am saying that in a cooling period you get more clouds, and more snow and more rain, simply because of physical reasons.
IMHO it has nothing to do with cosmic galactic rays…..

Only a fool would deny that the warming and cooling episodes are readily visible there. And of course the ratio of lower to higher activity periods makes for strong trends at an inter-decadal scale, i.e. there are less periods of lower activity through the strongest warming periods.

That of observation. Free parameters must then be assigned based on observation, if they cannot be deduced from first principles.

“And if the values you integrate are wrong to begin with, what does that do to the result?”

It makes it wrong, too. But, that is TBD.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:22 am

“So, no, I don’t see how that works. Explain it to me.”

It is called the “Hale Cycle”. That is because it is named after Hale. If it were Vukcevic’s, it would be called the “Vukcevic Cycle”. Humans tend to name a discovery after the first person who made it widely known and accepted.

bones says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:22 am

“But the bottom line is that ocean surface temperatures mostly adjust very quickly to solar flux changes.”

But, all you are offering is surmise as to that effect. Mental exercises are all fine and good, but when the data tell you your gedanken is flawed, you have to do a little more thinking.

HenryP says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:38 amthere are various reports I can find again SHOWING that the variation in FUV/EUV is considerable
Playing with words. Of course, there is considerable variation in FUV/EUV within each cycle and from day to day, but the amount of EUV/FUV we get scales VERY well with the sunspot number and with F10.7 and with the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the east component of the geomagnetic field, and those parameters SHOW no long-term trend since 1722.

Leif makes a distinction between radiative forcings and stratospheric variation:

the Kodera paper states that the effects are not due to solar radiative forcing, but “The present analysis demonstrated that the regional impact of Indian Ocean is related to stratospheric variation”.

Doesn’t change anything. If solar-magnetic effects induce some stratospheric variation that drives climate, that is a mechanism of solar amplification.

I agree with Leif that, the way radiative forcing is defined (as an immediate or near-immediate Top Of the Atmosphere imbalance between energy in and out), the effects of UV-shift on atmospheric circulation, and the resulting effects on cloud formation, which do affect the TOA imbalance, are not rapid enough to be considered “forcings.” But that is purely an artifact of how the artificial categories of forcing and feedback are defined. It is still a possible mechanism by which solar activity drives climate, and one for which there is quite a bit of evidence at this point.

Lots of studies are finding that atmospheric circulation patterns are strongly affected by solar activity, presumably through the UV shift that accompanies solar variation. High activity -> more UV -> more interaction with stratospheric ozone (creation and destruction) warms the stratosphere while at the same time less radiation gets through to warm the surface -> altered atmospheric circulation patterns.

The SOD actually does talk about the TOA imbalances that might result from these processes as RF effects. That bit was quoted in David Hoffer’s post about chapter 11:

As discussed in Section 8.2.1.4.1, a recent satellite measurement (Harder et al., 2009) found much greater than expected reduction at UV wavelengths in the recent declining solar cycle phase. Changes in solar uv drive stratospheric O3 chemistry and can change RF. Haigh et al. (2010) show that if these observations are correct, they imply the opposite relationship between solar RF and solar activity over that period than has hitherto been assumed. These new measurements therefore increase uncertainty in estimates of the sign of solar RF, but they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF, which remains small (Chapter 8). However, they do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate (as discussed in 10.3.1.1.3), that are not necessarily reflected by the RF metric (see 8.2.16).

The authors only mention regional impacts, but this is only just beginning to be studied and it could well turn out that the various “regional” effects sum to a significant “global” effect. Stephen Wilde has a theory of why the net effect should be global, and it is certainly possible that some such theory will turn out to be correct. A number of research efforts have found strong solar-AMO correlations, and Kodera is pretty positive about the Indian Ocean weather patterns and solar. Kodera’s full abstract, if anyone is interested:

The result of paleoclimate studies on the relationship between the Indian monsoon and solar activity, inferred from the analysis of stalagmites in Oman, is confirmed by using a modern meteorological dataset from 1958–1999. The present result suggests that the solar influence on monsoon activity is not due to a change in radiative heating in the troposphere but, rather, originates from the stratosphere through modulation of the upwelling in the equatorial troposphere, which produces a north-south seesaw of convective activity over the Indian Ocean sector during summer. Higher precipitation over Arabia and India, thus, occurs during high solar activity.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 10:22 am
……..
The Sun-Earth magnetic link is established by numerous geomagnetic storms (generated by CMEs) during every cycle. In the even-numbered solar cycles the solar magnetic field tends to hit magnetosphere more often with a leading edge that is magnetized north. This opens a breach and loads the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm .
Thus the Earth magnetic field differentiates between odd and even cycles.

I doubt the warming is even .8°C. With UHI and questionable adjustments the real increase might be much less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alternate view:Koppen climate Classification using native plants. The decadal boundaries for the twentieth century for the mid west USA (see second map) map 1910 and 1970 were the only two decades different from the ‘pack’ and they were COLDER.

Doesn’t change anything. If solar-magnetic effects induce some stratospheric variation that drives climate, that is a mechanism of solar amplification.
Except that the solar parameters that might influence the stratosphere have not shown any long-term trend the past 300 years. That is the key point.

While it is true that the paper’s authors and the IPCC believe that this is good evidence against the GCR hypothesis, It actually (so far as I can see) provides good evidence for it. see Figure 2 for instance.

the bottom line is that ocean surface temperatures mostly adjust very quickly to solar flux changes.

But as he himself notes, heat transfer in and out of deeper ocean layers can take much longer, and as deeper layers warm, that will reduce the heat loss from the upper ocean layer, causing it to continue to warm in response to a long term increase in forcing. The claim that persistent high levels of forcing won’t cause continued warming is WRONG.

ALEC SAYS
Lots of studies are finding that atmospheric circulation patterns are strongly affected by solar activity, presumably through the UV shift that accompanies solar variation. High activity -> more UV -> more interaction with stratospheric ozone (creation and destruction) warms the stratosphere while at the same time less radiation gets through to warm the surface -> altered atmospheric circulation patterns.
HENRY SAYS
You got it. You figured it out. Just remember it is not only ozone. There are also some peroxides and nitrous oxides involved, which as yet have never even been measured on the TOA….

Dana Nuccitelli and the likes that inhabit that site always respond by grabbing something, anything, that readily comes to mind to rebut a new perspective …. I don’t think any of them have ever exhibited an original thought, being sadly capable of only parroting what they have trained themselves to parrot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SkS is a paid propaganda site. Of course they will do anything, say anything to hide the truth. That is what their pay check requires. That is what their ‘world leadership’ goal requires.

If you read between the lines HERE. John Cook who runs SkS is/was a FOR HIRE web programmer. (2010)

…working from his home in web programming and database programming, something he still does to earn a living, generally working with small local Australian businesses — local doctors, beauty salons, cartoonists, and promotional product companies.

The University of Queensland is a research leader in many areas associated with global change….
Context

Global change encompasses the interactions of natural and human induced changes in the global environment and their implications for society. These changes are occurring at an unprecedented scale and speed. Fundamental global sustainability challenges include issues as diverse as climate change (carbon mitigation and adaptation); human population growth and shift; resource security and consumption (food, energy sources, water and minerals); stewardship of biodiversity and natural ecosystems; and, within a systems framework, managing the complex impacts (including cumulative impacts), convergences and responses on ecosystem health, social resilience and economic prosperity (including business and industry).

The University of Queensland has established leadership in many of the issues associated with global change, and is positioned to provide national and international leadership in these areas. The GCI will provide a vehicle for collaborative research, learning, engagement and advocacy in major global change issues.
Vision

The GCI will contribute to evidence-based, progressive solutions to the problems of a rapidly changing world within the existing and projected frameworks of those problems: political, environmental, technical, social, economic.

The Institute’s vision is to be an internationally respected source of knowledge for addressing the challenges of a changing world.
Mission

In achieving the vision, the GCI will investigate complex, interconnected issues in innovative ways to achieve multi-disciplinary, integrated solutions.The Institute’s mission is therefore:“To foster discovery,learning and engagement by creating, applying and transferring knowledge for innovative and integrated solutions to address the challenges of a changing world”.

Boy talk about swallowing the Progressive Kool Aid! These guys see themselves as some sort of techno-aristocracy handing down wisdom from on high to the sheeple and saving the world. Must be some head trip to think you will be ruling the world.

This is the reason you will not see these guys climbing down from CAGW. This gives you a glimpse of ‘The Cause’ mentioned in the Climategate e-mails stated in their own words.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 8:18 am
William says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
If I understand the mechanisms the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
What does that mean? As I understand the mechanisms the solar magnetic cycle behaves normally, no ‘interruption’ [depending on what you mean by that]

If my understanding of the mechanisms, what happen in the past, and what is currently happening to the sun is correct, solar cycle 24 will lead to an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. (i.e. This is not a Maunder minimum.) The restart of the solar magnetic cycle is the hypothesized cause of a Heinrich event. You believe based on the assumed standard solar model that it is not possible for the solar magnetic cycle to be interrupted.

As I stated, there is concurrent with the cyclic Heinrich events massive cosmogenic isotope changes, an abrupt drop in planetary temperature, burn marks on the surface of the planet, and abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field. I started a quest 10 years ago looking for a physical explanation as to what causes the cyclic Heinrich event and the glacial/interglacial cycle and become sidetracked with sets of interrelated astronomical anomalies.

There is observational evidence that supports the assertion that there are significant fundamental errors in the standard solar model.

If and when there is unequivocal observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted or if there are significant unexplained solar observations, there will be a something to discuss. I would expect the solar anomalies to start before there is a drop in planetary temperature. I would be very interested in your comments concerning any anomalous solar observations.

I have looked into each specialist’s deep cavern and pulled out the observational anomalies. The physics of what happens when very, very; large objects collapse is different than what is assumed. Black holes are a theoretical construct; they do not physically exist: the standard accretion disc model does not and cannot explain quasar evolution, quasar magnetic field structure, quasar jets, quasar clustering, structured ejection of material from the central galactic region, and so on. The object that forms is active not passive, it changes with time and affects the evolution and morphology of galaxies. There are 20 years of astronomical papers to support that assertion. The authors of the papers use the word anomaly, paradox, unexplained or missing mechanism to force observations to fit a pattern that should be random based on the standard models, and so on. The papers in question are at the end of the process of observation and analysis and are written by prominent specialists in each subfield.

The observational anomalies can be fit together like a jig saw puzzle, to provide an outline of the missing mechanisms.

The following is observational evidence that indicates there is something fundamental incorrect with the standard solar model.

“The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical—the Sun is opaque, so convection cannot be directly observed. As a result, theories largely rest on what we know about fluid flow and then applying them to the Sun, which is primarily composed of hydrogen, helium, and plasma.”

“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”

“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

Uselessly-protracted back-&-forth-silliness summary:“As the sun moves across the sky, yin and yang gradually trade places with each other, revealing what was obscured and obscuring what was revealed.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin-yang

Bart says:
December 29, 2012 at 11:10 am“What is that interval?”
That of observation.
For the sunspot number that is 400 years. The result of integration over that interval is a single number.

It is called the “Hale Cycle”. That is because it is named after Hale. If it were Vukcevic’s, it would be called the “Vukcevic Cycle”.
Hale did not assign a negative sign to every other solar cycle. Vuk does. Hence the ‘cycle’ Vuk works with is not Hale’s but Vuk’s.

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 11:24 amHigh activity -> more UV -> more interaction with stratospheric ozone (creation and destruction) warms the stratosphere while at the same time less radiation gets through to warm the surface -> altered atmospheric circulation patterns.
The problem with this is that there has been no long-term trend the past 300 years. Another problem is that some recent observations [Jeff Harder] suggests that UV varies in anti-phase with the sunspot cycle [low activity – > more UV].

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 11:24 am
lsvalgaard says:Thus the Earth magnetic field differentiates between odd and even cycles.
CMEs don’t behave like that. There is no difference between even and odd cycles: http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Dst.png

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 11:58 amThe claim that persistent high levels of forcing won’t cause continued warming is WRONG.
If the forcing increases at a step and stays persistently high forever, continued warming stops, i.e. the temperature stops increasing after a while.

William says:
December 29, 2012 at 12:29 pmIf my understanding of the mechanisms, what happen in the past, and what is currently happening to the sun is correct, solar cycle 24 will lead to an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.
What does that mean? Interruption of what? What is an ‘interruption’?

DirkH says:
December 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm
You had pictures of handcuffed, blindfolded children in trunks of cars on your milk cartons in America in the 80ies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROTFL… No the pictures were the last pictures the parents had of the child. Walmart now has similar pictures posted on the wall behind the checkout counters.

William says:
December 29, 2012 at 12:29 pmThere is observational evidence that supports the assertion that there are significant fundamental errors in the standard solar model. […]
The following is observational evidence that indicates there is something fundamental incorrect with the standard solar model.

I asked Hanasoge about that and he realizes that he went a bit ‘over the top’ and that his comments are confusing:

From: Shravan Hanasoge
I now realize it’s a bit of a confusing statement because it’s a slightly technical concept. The “rapidity” of solar rotation is defined in our context through the Rossby number: the ratio of convective velocity to the speed of rotation. It is largely thought that the Sun, in the context of Rossby number, is a slow rotator, i.e. that Coriolis forces play a very weak role in influencing convective motions. (which is actually true in the case of granulation; see also Miesch 2005, living reviews). However our results show that the convective motions are substantially weaker than previously thought, which means the Rossby number is very low and convection therefore is strongly influenced by rotation and Coriolis forces (much more so than previously thought). In that sense, the Sun is “fast rotator”.
Shravan

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the standard solar model.
“Helioseismology, through the very accurate identiﬁcation of oscillation frequencies of acoustic and fundamental modes, has clearly demonstrated that the standard solar models reproduce the behaviour of the Sun with remarkably accuracy, consistent within 1%.”http://www.leif.org/EOS/1212-5077-Helioseismology.pdf

….The inverse relationship between cosmic rays and temperature definitely seems to be strong, especially with the graph with the millions of years. However it is not perfect. But then again, we cannot expect any trend to be perfect since there are many variables controlling climate and not just one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have to add in the oceans. The Thermohaline Circulation is something like 1600 years for the Pacific and 350 for the Atlantic. link

There is the ~1500 year Heinrich Events, Dansgaard-Oeschger Events, and Bond Cycles.

On a paper by Dr. Sebastian Lüning (includes link to paper)

The American scientists also performed a frequency analysis of the climatic fluctuations and found the characteristic cycles with periods of 1500, 90 and 60 years (Figure 3). Schmidt and his colleagues interpreted the 1500 year cycle as those that Gerard Bond described earlier. The data set also contained the 60-year cycle, which likely mirrored the Atlantic Decadal Cycle. link

And another new study

December 06, 2012 A team of scientists supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) has identified for the first time a clear 1,500-year cycle in the far North’s surface atmosphere pressure pattern.

….When the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index is positive, surface pressure is low in the polar region. This helps the mid-latitude jet stream blow strongly and consistently from west to east, thus keeping cold Arctic air locked in the polar region. When the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index is negative, there tends to be high pressure in the polar region, weaker zonal winds and greater movement of frigid polar air into the populated areas of the middle latitudes….link

There is Stephen Wilde’s zonal vs meridional jet stream.

One wonders if what you are seeing is an ocean circulation on the same timing as the solar variation with the increase/decrease in solar energy, especially at different wavelengths acting to ‘recharge the capacitor’ or even adding increments of energy to an already ‘charged system’ Sort of like a kid being pushed on a swing where once the oscillation is started not much energy is needed to keep it going or to increase the amplitude.

Abstract. Different records of solar activity (Wolf and group sunspot number, data on cosmogenic isotopes, historic data) were analyzed by means of modern statistical methods, including one especially developed for this purpose. It was confirmed that two long-term variations in solar activity – the cycles of Gleissberg and Suess – can be distinguished at least during the last millennium. The results also show that the century-type cycle of Gleissberg has a wide frequency band with a double structure consisting of 50 – 80 years and 90 – 140 year periodicities. The structure of the Suess cycle is less complex showing a variation with a period of 170 – 260 years. Strong variability in Gleissberg and Suess frequency bands was found in northern hemisphere temperature multiproxy that confirms the existence of a long-term relationship between solar activity and terrestial climate.

5. Conclusions
Summarising results of our analysis we can conclude that:
(1) Two basic modes of long-term solar variability – the cycles of Gleissberg and
Suess – really exist at least within the last millennium, and probably during a longer
period (up to 10 000 last years). They are manifested in direct and proxy indicators
of different parameters of solar activity (sunspots, heliospheric solar modulation,
aurorae). It indicates that Gleissberg and Suess cycles are the fundamental features
of SA.

(2) The century-type solar variation – the Gleissberg cycle has not a single 80–90-year periodicity (as it was considered till now) but has a wide frequency band (50–140 years) and a complex character. More likely it consists of two oscillation modes – 50–80-years periodicity and 90–140-years periodicity. The Suess cycle is 160–260 years and the cycle is more stable and less complex, as Schove (1983) suggested.

(3) Global northern hemisphere climate has appreciable variability in the Gleissberg and Suess bands at least during the last 1000 years. It confirms an assumption that climate is modulated by SA during the corresponding time interval. The work made in this paper using modern statistical methods shows that complex analysis of all variety of direct and indirect information about SA in the past is a perspective tool for investigation of long-term variability

Gail Combs says:
December 29, 2012 at 1:27 pmA team of scientists supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) has identified for the first time a clear 1,500-year cycle in the far North’s surface atmosphere pressure pattern.

Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 55, 8 November 2012, Pages 23–33
Invited paper
A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609
Stephen P. Obrochta, Hiroko Miyahara, Yusuke Yokoyama, Thomas J. Crowley
Ice-rafting evidence for a “1500-year cycle” sparked considerable debate on millennial-scale climate change and the role of solar variability. Here, we reinterpret the last 70,000 years of the subpolar North Atlantic record, focusing on classic DSDP Site 609, in the context of newly available raw data, the latest radiocarbon calibration (Marine09) and ice core chronology (GICC05), and a wider range of statistical methodologies. A ∼1500-year oscillation is primarily limited to the short glacial Stage 4, the age of which is derived solely from an ice flow model (ss09sea), subject to uncertainty, and offset most from the original chronology. Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ∼1000 and ∼2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability. Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.

Seems the Russians do not agree with Dr. S.
As long as they use the obsolete Wolf number and Group Numbers no agreement can be expected.

The whole premise of what the models are based on needs to be examined….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the premise:
the IPCC mandate states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

As Mosher stated in another thread, the climate models keep CO2 forcing constant and fiddle with everything else – aerosols are the current play toy – to get some sort of agreement with reality.

What follows is complicated. My apologies for that but spin is only as complicated in its unraveling as it was in its raveling….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for making that point. People at WUWT often forget others may not have read several years worth of posts as background.

No trend over the last several hundred years? Sorry, but that’s a big-ol trend. Ditto for Steinhilber’s more recent analysis. Check out figure 1 from his 2010 paper, graphing his “solar modulation function” phi from 1700:

According to my own analysis of 47 weather stations, we will be cooling in the next 35 years:http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
and indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average.
(Remember also that when water vapour in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places).
As the farmers in Anchorage have noted,http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cooling is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.
And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. The cooling will last until 2030-2040. See here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
The sad story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,
for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),
and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),
the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,
e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:02 pmSo Leif has insisted many times, but other scientists disagree. Leif himself has previously lauded Steinhilber’s TSI reconstruction.
Check out their Figure 1d in the first paper you cite
and Figure 7 in the 2nd paper. No trend.

The Steinhilber paper has these statements:
“Our estimated difference between the MM and the present is smaller by a factor of 2-4 compared
to records [Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 2000] that have been used in climate model studies.”
Implying a much smaller trend than people assume.

the rather small forcing by TSI changes may still be a problem. The UV irradiance may not be the viable solution because its observational data do not show a similar distinct decreasing trend as TSI [Frohlich ¨ , 2009], implying that its level during the MM was similar as in present solar cycle minima.
Thus no trend.

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:02 pmMy favorite part? In the caption they join Usoskin in calling the high 20th century levels of solar activity a “grand solar maximum.” Heh. Hard to herd the cats isn’t it?
Science is self-correcting so their little sleight of hand will disappear. Slides 4 and 5 ofhttp://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf tell the story. They use the heliospheric magnetic field as their parameter but omitting data before 1900 even as they agree with our reconstruction [shown of slide 4 and ‘blown up’ to match on slide 5].

Alec Rawls said of Dana’s view of the physics involved: [Dana’s view is that] If you leave a pot of water on a steady flame it won’t heat. If you want to heat the water you have to keep turning the flame up….. ”

Very nice analogy …. and Dana has to acknowledge this is one freaking big pot of water……. and that he keeps telling how small is the solar forcing, but posits a theory of instant response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes that is another sleight of hand. the Delta in solar forcing is small in Wm^2 but then you have to multiply it by the 70% surface area of the ocean. Also the ocean is not effected byCO2 IR wavelengths (penetrate 10 microns) but is the most sensitive to shorter wavelengths in the visible and UV range where the sun DOES vary.

How anyone can look at the following four graphs and honestly think CO2 has much of anything to do with the climate much less is the ‘climate control knob’ completely floors me. That it is Universities and ‘World Class’ scientists stuns me. It also convinces me we need a very though house cleaning by withdrawing all grant money.

Dr. Svalgaard CMEs don’t behave like that. There is no difference between even and odd cycles:

NASA thinks differently, and I assume they know what they are talking about

“We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It’s the perfect sequence for a really big event.”http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/

As discussed in Section 8.2.1.4.1, a recent satellite measurement (Harder et al., 2009) found much greater than expected reduction at UV wavelengths in the recent declining solar cycle phase.

Reduction was expected [low activity -> less UV] and Harder found that this reduction was even greater than expected. Haigh seems to have found the same thing, but puts an amazingly crazy spin on it. She claims that with such a large UV shift the amount of visible light that goes down when solar activity is high (i.e. the shift is larger than the increase in TSI) resulting in less warming of the surface. Instead of causing global warming, a highly active sun would actually cause cooling, according to Haigh, all stated very soberly of course:

“… if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun’s role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it.”

Total energy in goes up, but she claims a cooling effect. She is an atmospheric physicist. She knows as well as anybody that this UV shift is going to change atmospheric circulation, which lots of studies are showing can affect climate, but she’s got her story and she’s sticking to it.

Interestingly, her NewScientist interview mentioned the atmospheric effects of UV shift, dismissing them as only local:

But the type of radiation the sun puts out changes more significantly, and this has complex effects on atmospheric circulation patterns like the jet streams. As a result, the sun has a significant effect on regional climates. Climatologists anxious to figure out how global warming will affect specific places, particularly Europe, must pay close attention to the sun (see The sun joins the climate club).

Actually, it is not clear whether is a paraphrase of Haigh, or was interjected by NewScientist, but either way, Haigh is certainly aware of this stuff, and was at the time being asked to comment on my leak of the SOD’s admission of strong evidence for SOME substantial mechanism of solar amplification. UV-shift effects is one obvious candidate, so the NewScientist actually belittles TWO of the main candidates for this unidentified solar amplification mechanism, without mention in either case how being unconvinced of any particular mechanism does nothing to counter the evidence that some such mechanism is at work.

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:39 pmLeif seems to be misreading the SOD on Harder 2009.
I read Harder not SOD on Harder.
The unexpected variation of UV [which is not certain at all – difficult measurements!] even prompted the modellers to consider what would happen if indeed UV and solar activity were out-of-phase:http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf
My own take is that the Harder ‘effect’ is due to calibration problems and will go away with better data.

December 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm
vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:27 pmNASA thinks differently, and I assume they know what they are talking about
It seems not.

“We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It’s the perfect sequence for a really big event.”
‘should’? When you look at 100 years of data you find that there is no difference between even and odd cycles as far as the impact of CMEs is concerned: http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Dst.png so the expectation is wrong.

Alec Rawls says:
“According to Bones:
the bottom line is that ocean surface temperatures mostly adjust very quickly to solar flux changes.

But as he himself notes, heat transfer in and out of deeper ocean layers can take much longer, and as deeper layers warm, that will reduce the heat loss from the upper ocean layer, causing it to continue to warm in response to a long term increase in forcing. The claim that persistent high levels of forcing won’t cause continued warming is WRONG.”

The idea that warming of deeper ocean layers layers will reduce the rate of heat loss from the upper ocean layers is what is WRONG here. It may be a surprise to Alec, but there is very, very little heat loss from the first 100 meters of the ocean to greater depths. With thermal conductivity of about 6 watt/m/C and a temperature gradient of about 0.025 C/m. the rate of heat loss to lower depths is thus of the order 0.15 watt per square meter, compared to something like a net 170 watt per square meter of UV-VIS absorbed in the first 100 meters, on global average (and half of that in the first 25 meters). Thus nearly all of that 170 watt/m^2 is radiated back out from the surface. Consequently, the surface temperatures respond to solar flux changes on the thermal relaxation time scale of the upper ocean layers. Further, the heat that makes it to depths below 100 meters essentially won’t be coming back. Only in the polar regions are there places cold enough to be warmed by transport of that heat to a colder place. As I noted previously, the thermal time constant for the first hundred meters is about 3 years and thermal relaxation is essentially complete after about 3 such periods.

I will be happy to discuss this issue in considerable mathematical detail with any interested parties. For a change, q, of solar flux from a thermal equilibrium value, that increases linearly with time while producing no other changes of cloud cover or wind speeds or patterns, the surface temperature increase and thermal time constant are given here:

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:39 pmUV-shift effects is one obvious candidate, so the NewScientist actually belittles TWO of the main candidates for this unidentified solar amplification mechanism
The Steinhilber et al. paper you cite, ends with “The UV irradiance may not be the viable solution because its observational data do not show a similar distinct decreasing trend as TSI [Frohlich ¨ , 2009], implying that its level during the MM was similar as in present solar cycle minima.
So you will quote selectively and omit what you don’t like.

Ian Holton says:
December 29, 2012 at 3:07 pmLeif, looks clearly to me that it was lower mean from approx 1876 to 1929 and higher mean from 1930 to 2003
Yes, but was higher before 1876 and lower after 2003, adding up to no overall trend. The straight line is the least-square trend [there isn’t any].

Gail Combs says:
December 29, 2012 at 3:22 pm“As long as they use the obsolete Wolf number and Group Numbers no agreement can be expected.”
They are not.
They say they are: “Different records of solar activity (Wolf and group sunspot number)”

I find it quite interesting that you are rewriting historical data just as Hansen does with temperature data.I am not ‘rewriting’ the historical data. The whole sunspot community [some 60 experts on this] are doing this, as it should be done when errors have been identified. Wolf himself did that several times. Wolfer did the same in 1902. Hoyt and Schatten did in 1994. Hugh Hudson summarizes the work of the 1st and 2nd SSN workshops thus
“Conclusions I
• The modern work on SSN has been wonderful, establishing its reproducibility and precision
• The older SSN records need rationalization
• This group needs to take charge of the perception of SSN:
– Consensus
– Public databases and ample publications
– Propaganda that discredits any research not using the consensus SSN ”

We have recruited scientists with a variety of expertise/opinions on re-calibration/reconciliation of the SSN. In addition, at each workshop we have invited knowledgeable senior scientists as reviewers to provide critiques and offer guidance. Re-calibrating the sunspot number is a topic whose time has time. It can no longer be ignored – the discrepancies are too large and the applications (solar dynamo, climate change, space weather and climate) too prominent. Our efforts to re-calibrate the SSN have met with some resistance already, primarily from people with vested interest in the status-quo [are you one of those?]

Leif says:Check out their Figure 1d in the first paper you cite and Figure 7 in the 2nd paper. No trend.Starting in 1700? Definitely a trend. And just as interestingly, when solar activity went up in the 1700’s it got warmer. When solar activity dipped into the Dalton minimum, it got colder. When solar activity went back up, it got warmer. When solar activity dropped into the turn of the 19th century lull, it got colder. When solar activity rose to what Usoskin, Steinhilber and Lockwood call “grand maximum” levels from the 1920 on, it got warmer. That Figure 1d looks approximately like the temperature record for the same period.

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 3:59 pmThat Figure 1d looks approximately like the temperature record for the same period.
To substantiate that would you plot the temperature record on Figure 1d?
And there is no Grand Maximum in the 20th century, no matter what they call it.

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 3:59 pmWhen solar activity rose to what Usoskin, Steinhilber and Lockwood call “grand maximum” levels from the 1920 on, it got warmer.
Here is what Usoskin call the Modern Grand Maximum http://www.leif.org/research/Extreme-MGM.png [pink oval]. compare that the green oval where TSI [actually 10Be] was similar to what it is today. And you can see the error.

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 3:54 pmAs long as it is in the data, I am not really much concerned if you agree or not.
but since it is not in the data http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Dst.png
you are committing scientific fraud by claiming it is.

Leif: you are the KING selective evidence. Let’s reach back real far to 10 seconds ago. You claimed NO TREND. I point out several graphs that show very clear trend and you answer with others that show less trend, then you accuse ME of being selective! Man what a hypocrite.

And now I can’t even make a general statement, very well evidenced, that UV-shift is being found by a lot of studies to be an avenue of solar influence on climate, without you jumping on me for not digging some bit of counter evidence out of one of dozens of papers on the subject? There is TONS of counter evidence. ALL of this stuff is very formative. What is insane is for the IPCC to be making extravagant declarations of certainty about it all. I’m not claiming certainty about, but you seem to be. It can’t be X. It can’t be Y. Given the state of the evidence, GCR and UV most certainly are possible mechanisms.

At present I am only sure of one fact. In the morning the sun will rise, will I see it? Don’t know. If I am alive the chance of observation increases, but it is no guarantee. Things get in the way, they exist, between me and my external source of energy. All I know is if I can see the sun I am warmer than if I cannot. I know that walls, (I grow fruit) retain more warmth the longer they are exposed to the sun.

Have a look at a few charts courtesy of the UKMO, they are only the UK, but that is where I am:-

Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 4:30 pmyou jumping on me for not digging some bit of counter evidence out of one of dozens of papers on the subject?
I’m pointing to a paper you just cited, not dozens of others.I’m not claiming certainty about, but you seem to be. It can’t be X. It can’t be Y.
If the data does not support Z, it can’t be Z. Here, I spared you the work:
Remember that ‘TSI’ here just means any and all of the solar indicators that all vary very much the same.
Given the state of the evidence, GCR and UV most certainly are possible mechanisms
For an effect that doesn’t exist. Any mechanism will work.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm
===============
Scientific fraud, seems a bit harsh.
Open data, may reveal mistakes.
As we try to make sense of a nonsensical data stream.
We’re hard-wired that way.

– Is Dr. Svalgaard as the premier solar scientist aware of spectral composition of the geomagnetic Aa index?
– Of course he is.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HC.htm
– Does Aa index show Hale Cycle component?
– Of course it does
– How and where is Aa index measured?
– The Aa index data have been derived by two antipodal sites, originally Greenwich and Melbourne but now their nearest replacements. The daily values are formed from an average of the 8 three-hourly values.
– Is there any similarity between Aa index and the Earth’s magnetic field spectra?
– Yes, for periods above 14 years, spectra are very similar and both have Hale cycle component.
– Why is Dr. Svalgaard denying that the Hale cycle is perceptible on the Earth’s surface?
– You have to ask Dr. Svalgaard.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm
I am not ‘rewriting’ the historical data. The whole sunspot community [some 60 experts on this] are doing this…..Our efforts to re-calibrate the SSN have met with some resistance already, primarily from people with vested interest in the status-quo [are you one of those?]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a Quality Engineer/Chemist who has great respect for data. I have been fired more than once for refusing to change data as directed by my boss.

From the Climategate e-mails we have seen what lengths the ‘Climate Science Community’ will go to to protect ‘The Cause’. Jo Nova, E.M. Smith, Digging-in-the-Clay and Anthony have documented the activities of the ‘Climate Science Community’ with regards to temperature.

Then there is the CO2 measurements. Again we see what was done by the ‘Climate Science Community’ to the historic data when Callender and Keeling tossed any data points they did not like. link The fact that Dr. Jaworowski, a World Class scientist was denied funding and fired makes it clear those who dissent are punished.

…in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.….
…in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis….. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

Here at WUWT we have seen the ridiculous lengths ‘scientists’ and universities will go in the pursuit of grant funding including a contrived paper that equates skeptics with real loony-tunes and finally a guy with a degree in PHYSICS (yeah Parncutt) calling for a law making climate skepticism punishable by death.

Now you want me to believe there are SIXTY solar scientists out there who are not bit with the Skeptical Science Syndrone bug??? And it just so happens that the ‘adjustments’ to the historical data they are making iron the sun’s variability flat so the IPCC can then point to your data and say SEE it ain’t the sun.

“When it was believed that TSI was significantly lower and that the solar magnetic field [HMF] was near zero during the MM, it might have been a good bet to say that there is a causal link between MM and LIA. Now, that there is a strong possibility that TSI and the HMF were not at those lows, we can only still believe that MM caused LIA if we postulate either 1) unknown other causes and/or 2) extreme sensitivity of climate to solar activity.”

I think you have changed your mind about the solar magnetic field during the Maunder Minimum (MM), what was wrong with the previous assumption ?

2. If the sun is not considered to be a primary climate driver, what may have caused the warm periods during the last 9000 years. Is there anything at all (except the solar amplification mechanism) in the IPCC report that could explain those fast recoveries from several episodes of little ice age like temperatures ?

“..It also convinces me we need a very though house cleaning by withdrawing all grant money…”

I often face statements that I am arguing that “all the world’s climate scientists must be involved in a huge conspiracy”.

When in fact (as you pointed out elsewhere) with the magnificent vision of carbon trading before them, all governments and financial institutions immediately recognize an opportunity to do what they do best, make money out of other peoples’ money going past.

And they know (re scientific research) that they get that which they fund, and so they fund the ‘science’ they want to see.

No conspiracies needed. Supply and demand at work…. (money, in this case).

Science funding and research grants are still needed …. we just need to be careful it is not part of a system that automatically points everything in the one direction.

Leif, is there a particular reason that the data here http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png starts in 1844? Why would a linear trend (of zero) from such an early starting point have any relevance to recent temperature changes (i.e. the past 40 years or even the past 100)?

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:39 pm– Does Aa index show Hale Cycle component?
– Of course it does
As I explain in section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf and in secion 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf
there is a very weak 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity [discovered by Ed Chernosky in 1966] and which is reasonably well understood.
Except it is not a Hale cycle component as the period goes from solar max to solar max [thus not in phase with the sunspot cycle]. The weak variation can be found in geomagnetic storms as well http://www.leif.org/research/Plus-Minus.Dst.png
What is wrong with your assertion is, that this is a primary or dominant cycle. It is not, it is a hard to discover 2nd-order effect.
You started out by postulating that the Earth was causing the different shapes of the cosmic ray variation, then when that didn’t work, then you claimed CMEs showed a 22-yr cycle [which I showed you it didn’t]. You really have no idea what is going on.

Gail Combs says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:44 pmAnd it just so happens that the ‘adjustments’ to the historical data they are making iron the sun’s variability flat so the IPCC can then point to your data and say SEE it ain’t the sun.
It would help if you would actually read the papers on this. It is not hard. The problem starts in the 1940s when Waldmeier began to count larger spots more than once [up to five times dpending on size]. He even writes so specifically. The effect of that is a 20% increase of the sunspot number. When we noticed that a few years back, we began to ALSO count each spot only once as was done before 1945. Even the current observers on which the modern sunspots are based participated in the counting and we and they have conclusively shown that the double [or more] counting of spots contaminates the sunspot number making all number later than 1945 too large by 20%. The simplest way to correct for this known contamination is to increase all the old numbers by 20%. Even you could figure that out, if you took the trouble: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction%20of%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf
or simply count the spots on today’s drawing: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG and compare with what the observer has for each gropu [given at the upper right]. Tell us here how many spots you count.

Yeah right.
Yes, RIGHT!

Manfred says:
December 29, 2012 at 6:50 pmI think you have changed your mind about the solar magnetic field during the Maunder Minimum (MM), what was wrong with the previous assumption ?
I don’t think so.

2. If the sun is not considered to be a primary climate driver, what may have caused the warm periods during the last 9000 years. Is there anything at all (except the solar amplification mechanism) in the IPCC report that could explain those fast recoveries from several episodes of little ice age like temperatures ?
If the Sun can have those random fluctuations, then why can’t the Earth’s climate?

eric1skeptic says:
December 29, 2012 at 7:26 pmLeif, is there a particular reason that the data here http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png starts in 1844?
That is when the data with hourly [or better] resolution starts [there are some for a few years before, but we have not been able to dig them up yet].

Why would a linear trend (of zero) from such an early starting point have any relevance to recent temperature changes (i.e. the past 40 years or even the past 100)?
If there is no trend over 170 years but there is a trend in climate, the argument that the sun is responsible weakens.

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 5:39 pm– Does Aa index show Hale Cycle component?
– Of course it does
As I explain in section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf and in section 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf
there is a very weak 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity [discovered by Ed Chernosky in 1966] which is reasonably well understood.
Except it is not a Hale cycle component as the period goes from solar max to solar max [thus not in phase with the sunspot cycle]. This weak variation can be found in geomagnetic storms as well http://www.leif.org/research/Plus-Minus-Dst.png
What is wrong with your assertion is, that this is a primary or dominant cycle. It is not, it is a hard to discover 2nd-order effect.
You started out by postulating that the Earth was causing the different shapes of the cosmic ray variation, then when that didn’t work, you claimed CMEs showed a 22-yr cycle [which I showed you it didn’t]. You really have no idea what is going on.

We can argue about Earth all day.. but other planets of our Solar system are exhibiting signs of climate changes as well. Mars ice caps, Jupiter’s southern stripe ect ect ect.. The evidence is there for all to see but only for those who do not refuse to see it. There is research out for years on the effects of solar events on our sister planets but the entire its not the sun crowd refuses to acknowledge any of it because it is completely inconvenient of the other planets to cause discord in their perfect little theory. . Its a consensus science now, such a shame. Heres a thought though, if you have to change the data from the past to fit your present theory.. YOU SUCK.

Manfred says:
December 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm
I think you have changed your mind about the solar magnetic field during the Maunder Minimum (MM), what was wrong with the previous assumption ?

I don’t think so.
——————————————-

You didn’t think the heliospheric magnetic field strength was “near zero” during the Maunder Minimum. So is this still your opinion ?. How would you define “near zero” and what are your expectations for the AP index in case of a new MM ? Thanks.

The one and only graph directly displayed in the article here is dishonest garbage of fudged data, on both false cosmic ray trends and on choosing the most heavily fudged temperature set around (Hansen’s). It is disappointing that a skeptic like Alec Rawls helps the CAGW propagandists in prominent visual presentation. Having passing comments in text, with buried links to other graphs not so prominently displayed, does not remotely make up for such, as maybe several percent at most of readers will click on them.

However, for anybody who wades through the sea of falsehoods and reads this who has not before (even though my deeply buried comment here will only lead a few, if any, to truth, for every hundred misled by the prominently displayed graph):

No sharp decline in solar deflection of cosmic rays started in the early 1980s, in contrast to the disgustingly false graph. On the contrary, solar cycle 22 (September 1986 to May 1996) averaged a neutron count rate of about 5992 as verifiable at [ref. 1] (link given at end of comment), which was essentially identical as an average to how the prior solar cycle 21 (June 1976 to September 1986) had an average neutron count rate of 5991 ([ref. 2]).

The big picture, including a major rise in solar activity for those cycles relative to weak solar cycle 20 (1964-1976) of the prior global cooling scare period, can be seen in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg (click to enlarge).

Overall, the 20th century had much higher solar activity than the prior century, as may be particularly illustrated by using a metric exceptionally difficult to fudge into flatness: Shorter solar cycles tend to be more intense, and the average solar cycle length over 1901 to 1996 was 10.5 years, compared to the slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901 ( ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/docs/maxmin.new ).

Dr. Svalgaard
– I wrote Hale cycle is a primary period in the Earth’s magnetic field.
-You wrote and implied that I said it is primary cycle in the Aa index, when you know I have not
There is a mismatch between of what you read and what you wrote, I even linked the graph showing exactly the relationship.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HC.htm

you said: When you look at 100 years of data you find that there is no difference between even and odd cycles as far as the impact of CMEs is concerned
you said: but since it is not in the data you are committing scientific f… by claiming it is.
then after seeng above link you said: The weak variation can be found in geomagnetic storms as well

Hey, being accused of scientific misdeed (WUWT doesn’t like the f word) by someone changing data left, right and centre, it’s more sign of the weakness of your case. You first deny, than when confronted by the data, you haven’t managed to change as yet, you pull back a bit..
It is becoming not only tedious but a waste of time, when number of people have to point to you, that what they wrote and the interpretation you put on it, are very often two different things.
It appears that many other readers too, don’t take you your statements any more with full confidence, you once enjoyed, and that is really a pity.
The agenda that sun doesn’t affect climate, one way or the other, whatever the mechanism/s may be, is becoming less and less convincing.

I hate to say it, but this is the first GCR explanation I’ve really understood. Obviously if there is a lag (2.75 years – Lockwood) on solar effects, there must also be some lag on GCR. While there’s a slight statistical rise from 1991 to 2001, serious increase in GCR doesn’t start occurring until 2007. My thought is that even if the mechanism is not proven, the correlation between sunspots and temperature forcing is way too strong to be ignored.

The second prong of the agenda strategy to ignore solar forcing is the commonly reported mistake that the TSI was lowest in the second half of the 20th century, and that SC 23, being the lowest of the series did not immediately lead to cooling, thereby disproving that there is any solar effect on climate.

Leif writes “Except that the solar parameters that might influence the stratosphere have not shown any long-term trend the past 300 years. That is the key point.”

We only have a few years of SIM data Leif and that showed considerable variation. We simply dont know whether there is any trend in the variance or not. There’s not hiding from it, if the variation is real then its a potential game changer and could be the answer to “some solar influence” that the AR5 points at.

Meanwhile you categorically rule out the sun as a driver because of (lack of) TSI trends. I dont understand your reasoning. Or at least your certainty…

vukcevic says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:57 am– I wrote Hale cycle is a primary period in the Earth’s magnetic field.
-You wrote and implied that I said it is primary cycle in the Aa index, when you know I have not

Here is what you wrote:vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 6:55 am
Climate’s Natural Variability is a direct consequence of the interaction between the Solar magnetic cycles and the geomagnetic input (backed by data from NOAA, SIDC and ETHZ).
– 21.3 years (Hale cycle) period is the primary component in the both solar and Earth magnetic variability

Now you are denying that the Aa index is related to solar magnetic cycles…
In a weak sense you are correct, as the weak 22-yr variation in the Aa index is a geometric effect related to the aspect of the Earth in the solar wind.then after seeing above link you said: The weak variation can be found in geomagnetic storms as well
I said that back in 1978 and explained the physics that makes that happen. The plot was to show you how insignificant the 22-yr variation is.

It appears that many other readers too, don’t take you your statements any more with full confidence, you once enjoyed
Unlike you, I’m not fishing for approval.

pkatt says:
December 29, 2012 at 9:51 pmHeres a thought though, if you have to change the data from the past to fit your present theory.. YOU SUCK.
Same comments as to Gail: take the trouble to look for yourself. Go count the spots on http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG
Tell me how many you see. The official number is 20. If you don’t go and look and report here what you see, guess who sucks?

Manfred says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:41 amYou didn’t think the heliospheric magnetic field strength was “near zero” during the Maunder Minimum. So is this still your opinion ?. How would you define “near zero” and what are your expectations for the AP index in case of a new MM ?
I thought then and think now that the heliospheric magnetic field strength was about 4 nT [about the same as it was in 2009]. So for Ap, I would expect the same as for 2009: 4 [coincidence that it is 4 in both cases], for aa about 8 [aa is measured in nT, ap in units of 2 nT]. I consider those numbers good to about one unit, so can live with 3 nT. Since I don’t think the field was ‘near zero’, I don’t need to define ‘near zero’.

vukcevic says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:57 amthe data, you haven’t managed to change as yet
BTW, I have managed to changed the aa-index: it is now generally accept that aa is wrong before 1957 and must be corrected by adding 3 before that year, see Figures 13 and 14 of http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf

vukcevic (December 30, 2012 at 12:57 am) wrote:“It is becoming not only tedious but a waste of time, when number of people have to point to you, that what they wrote and the interpretation you put on it, are very often two different things.
It appears that many other readers too, don’t take you your statements any more with full confidence, you once enjoyed, and that is really a pity.
The agenda that sun doesn’t affect climate, one way or the other, whatever the mechanism/s may be, is becoming less and less convincing.”

His credibility is toast vukcevic. Whatever he may know about the sun, he’s darkly ignorant &/or deceptive about the macroscopic properties of terrestrial atmospheric circulation and quantitative methods that reveal them. His dark solar-terrestrial-climate narrative is STRICTLY INADMISSIBLE in the blinding light of earth rotation observations that are well-constrained by the laws of large numbers and conservation of angular momentum. With this one severely egregious offense he has forfeited the moral authority to comment on climate at all. Additionally, the incessant protracted negative public harassment & authoritarian internet bullying raises deep, deep concerns about Stanford’s apparent lack of sensible ethical standards.

My tolerance of this man’s dark ignorance &/or deception has completely expired. I recommend that either he be banned from commenting on climate or that strong restrictions be placed on his insufferable behavior.

TimTheToolMan says:
December 30, 2012 at 2:58 amWe only have a few years of SIM data Leif and that showed considerable variation. We simply dont know whether there is any trend in the variance or not. There’s not hiding from it, if the variation is real then its a potential game changer and could be the answer to “some solar influence” that the AR5 points at.
Whatever the measurements of SIM says, we have another monitor of UV, namely the Earth itself. UV creates the ionosphere. The day-night cycle results in an electric current about 110 km up. This current has a [small] magnetic effect which we can measure on the ground [was discovered in 1722 by George Graham]. We have kept track of that ever since and the result is that the UV radiation from the Sun [whatever its variability within a cycle is] does not have any long-term trend since then.

Meanwhile you categorically rule out the sun as a driver because of (lack of) TSI trends. I dont understand your reasoning. Or at least your certainty…
My reasoning [at least as far as SIM and UV are concerned] is as just described.

Paul Vaughan says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:42 amMy tolerance of this man’s dark ignorance &/or deception has completely expired. I recommend that either he be banned from commenting on climate or that strong restrictions be placed on his insufferable behavior.
I thought that expired a long time ago. And I feel how deeply inconvenient truths affect you.

In the context of the analogy, alcohol does get stored in a ‘reservoir’ throughout the body and particularly in certain cell types. This is actually a very good example of a simile and your refusal to accept the simple description illustrates your own limited mental capacity to draw parallels and fill in the blanks.

Part 1: i.Alcohol is retained in the body in cells.
ii. It is hypothesized that an energy/heat reservoir is a mechanism that allows heat to be retained.
Part 2: i. An amount of alcohol intoxicates an individual and is above the threshold to produce intoxication by a margin (alcohol accumulates).
ii. The energy entering the system is higher than the energy the system can absorb as something other than heat which results in more heat.
Part 3: i. The alcohol decreases but is still above the amount which can be removed/detoxified by the body and is still increasing in the cells.
ii. The incoming energy is lower but is still higher than the energy the system can retain as anything other than heat which still results in increased heat.

lsvalgaard says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:04 am
…….
You do sometime write a bit of nonsense.
Yes I said
– 21.3 years (Hale cycle) period is the primary component in the both solar and Earth magnetic variability.
And I will say that again.
Polar magnetic fields change polarity sign every ~10.6 years, making it a 21.3 year cycle
Sunspots change magnetic polarity sign every ~10.6 years, making it a 21.3 year cycle
For the Earth’s magnetic field main variable component (year to century scale) is at 21.3 years.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HC.htm
But for the Aa index which has no sign (always a positive number) main component is at ~10.6 year.Now you are denying that the Aa index is related to solar magnetic cycles…
Rubbish.
Once I find something is imbedded in the data, I shall make a point of it, I don’t need your approval whether to do it or not.

vukcevic says:
December 30, 2012 at 4:46 amYes I said
Here is what you said [and my responses]:

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 11:24 amThus the Earth magnetic field differentiates between odd and even cycles.
CMEs don’t behave like that. There is no difference between even and odd cycles: http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Dst.png

vukcevic says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:27 pmNASA thinks differently, and I assume they know what they are talking about
It seems not. […] When you look at 100 years of data you find that there is no difference between even and odd cycles as far as the impact of CMEs is concerned: http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Dst.png so the expectation is wrong.

So, your idea of even/odd cycles is wrong and the notion of giving even and odd cycles different signed sunspot numbers nonsense. Now you are trying to creep back, thinking that the tiny 22-variation in aa and Dst which I explained back in 1978 and which change at maximum rather than at minimum is a primary solar influence. Well, it is not. It is barely detectable.

I don’t need your approval whether to do it or not
When you fail or misinterpret the data, I let you know. Experience shows that you are impervious to learning, so my effort is probably of little impact [just like the 22-yr variation].

leif svalgaard says
UV creates the ionosphere. The day-night cycle results in an electric current about 110 km up. This current has a [small] magnetic effect which we can measure on the ground [was discovered in 1722 by George Graham]. We have kept track of that ever since and the result is that the UV radiation from the Sun [whatever its variability within a cycle is] does not have any long-term trend since then.

Henry says
You still did not get it. I will try one more time. I explained to you the reactions happening on TOA.
What comes through on earth in UV is constant exactly because of the reason that more (certain type) UV causes (manufactures) more ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides instead ,which subsequently back radiate another portion of far UV that would otherwise have heated the oceans (as water has absorption there)
So, now that ozone & others are increasing (leaving that UV that you measure at ground level the same!) we are cooling.http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

there is no other mechanism that would otherwise explain the facts that I am seeing happening.

HenryP says:
December 30, 2012 at 5:52 amthere is no other mechanism that would otherwise explain the facts that I am seeing happening.
Perhaps you are just seeing things. I wonder how many people would agree with you. Let them speak up now.

Henry says
You still did not get it. I will try one more time. I explained to you the reactions happening on TOA.
What comes through on earth in UV is constant
What determines the conductivity in the ionosphere 100-150 km up [not on Earth] is solar UV, so, indeed, I don’t get what you are trying to say [and I think that is how it should be].

vukcevic says:
December 30, 2012 at 6:33 amWell you can deny it as long as you wish, but the AMO and some other indices show and respond directly to the magnetic polarity/oscillations.
It should rather be phrased as you have not to my satisfaction shown that there is any meaningful or fruitful connection. Certainly you have fooled yourself and may happily live forevermore in that paradise.

Leif, you said “If there is no trend over 170 years but there is a trend in climate, the argument that the sun is responsible weakens.” I thought all of the solar factors were related (solar wind, solar UV, etc) to each other and to this measurement: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png If solar changes didn’t warm us from the LIA that means we need another explanation. I do not believe that explanation is CO2 or CO2 equivalent (e.g. deforestation) because the manmade changes in CO2 prior to the 1940’s are too small. There are possible natural explanations like long term ocean circulation changes and volcanoes.

It seems to me that integrating the Ap index above and below some average (e.g. 12) can start to explain some of the warming and cooling in the 20th century. That is in conjunction with other factors like slow steady CO2 warming and longer term oceanic trends. The atmospheric heat engines explanation for stability of the earth’s climate (specifically convection meridional cells) can account for factors that are not cyclical whether solar or terrestrial. For example if the Ap stays high for an extended period the heat engines limit the warming subject to other factors that control them.

markx says:
December 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm
…..Science funding and research grants are still needed …. we just need to be careful it is not part of a system that automatically points everything in the one direction…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither the EU or the USA can afford government ‘grant money’ Thanks to CAGW, WTO and the bankers we are bankrupt in all except name. In the USA we are not creating enough ‘wealth’ that is producing tangible goods via manufacturing, mining, forestry and Agriculture, to be able to provide grants. Our ever increasing trade deficit is proof of this.

On top of that academia is infested with a useless self-perpetuating ideology. We have a whole generation training in useless ‘green’ ‘environmental’ and ‘sustainability’ careers with a heavy flavoring of hatred for capitalism. Only a good swift kick out the door into the real world will cure that and it is the academics from kindergarten up that need that boot. As it is now it is the kids graduating with a rotten work ethic and even worse useless skills that are paying for the mistakes made by their advisors and teachers. It is time for those insulated in their ivory towers to pay instead.

The U.S. unemployment rate is reported as 7.8% and falling in the news although it is actually between 23% to 24% and rising. However it is new workers who are hit the worse because they have nothing to offer business.

… Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. … One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”Source

…In December 2007, the unemployment rate for young workers was 11.8 percent, more than two and a half times the unemployment rate for prime-age workers. Most recently, in April 2010, the unemployment rate for young workers reached 19.6 percent – the highest since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking unemployment in 1947.

Young workers make up a disproportionate share of the unemployed. They comprise 13 percent of the labor force, but make up 26 percent of the unemployed….

Unemployment spells early in a young person’s work life can have lasting negative effects on future earnings, productivity, and employment opportunities…..

On the very bottom of the list are Ag plus mining, manufacturing, construction, information, transportation and financial. ALL those are under 5% and those first four are the categories that produce this nations wealth. As I keep saying we have become a nation of shop keepers and burger flippers and it is not a ‘sustainable’ (I hate that word) mix. Without a solid foundation of mining, manufacturing and agriculture you just can not support the frills like Leisure, Hospitality, Health and Education where 50% of these new jobs are.

“When we pass the tax boundary…. my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession…. If we do not act, the result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet.” ~ top economist Arthur Laffer

eric1skeptic says:
December 30, 2012 at 6:58 amIf solar changes didn’t warm us from the LIA that means we need another explanation. I do not believe that explanation is CO2 or CO2 equivalent (e.g. deforestation) because the manmade changes in CO2 prior to the 1940′s are too small. There are possible natural explanations like long term ocean circulation changes and volcanoes.
Yes there are such other natural explanations. That solar activity and CO2 cannot alone explain the climate variation is evident from http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temp-TSI-Since-1600.png
There is no doubt solar ‘wiggles’ of the order of a tenth of a degree, but they can hardly be said to be ‘major drivers’ of our climate.

Gail Combs says:
December 30, 2012 at 7:03 amOnly a good swift kick out the door into the real world …
Well, here is such a kick for you: did you look at the sunspot drawing http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG to count the spots yourself and compare with the official count? Or are you like the people that refused to look through Galilieo’s telescope to avoid seeing the wonders he saw?

Chris Schoneveld says:
December 30, 2012 at 6:47 amPaul, I understand why Anthony tries to calm you down, but be assured I feel sympathy for your emotions.
so do I. It must be terrible to be so frustrated by exposure to inconvenient facts.

Years ago, I heard the expression “self-eating watermelon”, which seems to apply to our current and worsening economic structure. In effect, we have taxation on each swirl of internal “wealth” as it passes between providers of “services”. As we clean each others’ toilets, the amount that has to be allocated to health, education and welfare (call it “entitlements”) rapidly erodes the initial pool.

Somehow, the use of the term “educators” in place of “teachers” seems very 1984-ish.

Unless we export commodities and the products of knowledge-based industries in an amount greater than the amount we spend outside our own economic bloc, we’ll eventually become another Greece or Spain. To think that all that money from the Rockefellers, Soros and others is being channeled toward efforts to kill natural resource development and exports seems like a travesty of the highest order. What else is there? Too many lawyers, too few engineers and real scientists, too little reality in politics. The climate will continue to change; I worry more about political forces destroying the future for my grandkids.

Having left the computer last night about halfway through this thread, I returned this morning. Shocked, I must say. The level of discourse has decreased considerably – nearly back to 9th grade terminology. Meaning, of course, 9th grade when I was in 9th grade. Perhaps that would be 5th or 6th grade now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I might point out that folks responsible for data series frequently change data when appropriate. What was wrong and how it is corrected needs to be explained. When so, what’s the problem? Recall how a missing ‘m’ can result in a minus temperature of 15 becoming a plus temperature of 15 [delta t = 30] . Would it not be appropriate to have those incorrect data points changed?

John F. Hultquist says:
December 30, 2012 at 8:46 amI might point out that folks responsible for data series frequently change data when appropriate. What was wrong and how it is corrected needs to be explained. When so, what’s the problem?
In case of the sunspots it is dead-easy to convince oneself what the problem is. Take any drawing from Locarno http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html e.g. from yesterday http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG or made by Sergio Cortesi [observer since 1957] http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121105.JPG
Simply count the spots and compare with the official counts given in the upper right. A counting rule: if there are several black spots within the gray penumbra, count each spot.
It seems that the whiners have gone quiet on this.As I mentioned to Gail: don’t be like the people who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
John – You can also try to count and report your result here for the two cases.

Dr. Svalgaard, I am deeply disturbed by the approach taken in the above report to correct older observations (for example by multiplying them by 1.2, page 8) to bring them in line with modern observations . Please do NOT do that. Unfurtunately the same approach seems to be taken on the aa index as well.

We are all familiar (from the experience with global temperature data sets) with the dangers of correcting actual older observations, then years later correcting the ‘corrected’ data set, then years later ‘losing’ the original observations (not necesarily due to malfeasance but simply because they are no longer in much use) which however are still vital for analysis.

Also this specific correction does not makes no sense. During a period of ~60 years (a small time period) the ‘Waldmeier’ method was used, which recently it was dropped and they are back to using the old method. And the approach you propose is to modify the entire record prior to 1950 and post ~2000 to match that small segment? In my opinion it woud be much better to correct that Waldmeier anomaly of 1950-2000 rather than the entire record.

If historical continuity is desired, I think a better approach to correcting older observations would be to reduce the fidelity of newer observations to match older observations, not try to modify the entire pror data set to match new conditions. What about when even better telescopes come around? will the entire data set need to be re-corrected? This goes to the point that lost information cannot be recreated, but new information can always be removed. For example if it is desired to account for the effects of going from the Wolf 37 mmx20 telescope to the Wolfer 80mmx64 (or a more modern telescope) I could envision that it would be easy and simple to create a filter that would reduce the fidelity of the more modern image to the older one, and then count the spots as it would have been done then.

This of course implies that two or more sunspot historical record would be kept, One of ‘low fidelity’ dating to the 1700’s to modern times having a historical continuity, and a newer ones dating from the 50’s or 80’s that have more information, but lack the historical continuity,

Regarding your point (I’m paraphrasing) that the sun does not influence climate as there has been no ‘grand maximum’, nor a long term trend for 300 years, that simply doesn’t make sense. You seem to ignore the Maunder minimum, the tail end of which is shown at the begining of your graph, the Dalton minimum shown clearly in your graph ~1800-1825, some smaller decrease ~1875-1900 and the recent decrease post 2000, where the first two sunspot decreases clearly had an effect on world temperatures. In general a lack of long term trend does not imply a lack of local modulation.

Besides… why stop at 1710? (300 hundred years ago) why not go back to 1600? the long term trend would certainly change then.

lsvalgaard says:
December 30, 2012 at 9:25 am
Leif,
Over the past year, I have read your papers and looked at the slides. I do not have a problem with your SSN corrections. I believe you did explain what was wrong. The international effort toward corrections make sense to me. So, not a problem for me. I was wondering why others think this should not be done. Sorry if my comment was misleading.

Andrejs Vanags says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:16 pmDr. Svalgaard, I am deeply disturbed by the approach taken in the above report to correct older observations (for example by multiplying them by 1.2, page 8) to bring them in line with modern observations . Please do NOT do that. Unfortunately the same approach seems to be taken on the aa index as well.
In both cases there are very good reasons for doing so.
Why don’t you do the little exercise I suggested and convince yourself:
In case of the sunspots it is dead-easy to convince oneself what the problem is. Take any drawing from Locarno http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html e.g. from yesterday http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG or made by Sergio Cortesi [observer since 1957]http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121105.JPG
Simply count the spots and compare with the official counts given in the upper right. A counting rule: if there are several black spots within the gray penumbra, count each spot.
It seems that the whiners have gone quiet on this. As I mentioned to Gail: don’t be like the people who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
You can also try to count and report your result here for the two cases.

Also this specific correction does not makes no sense. During a period of ~60 years (a small time period) the ‘Waldmeier’ method was used, which recently it was dropped and they are back to using the old method.
No, they are not back to the old method. All sunspot numbers are normalized to the Locarno station which still uses the Waldmeier counting. The people at SIDC in Brussels agree with this.

And the approach you propose is to modify the entire record prior to 1950 and post ~2000 to match that small segment? In my opinion it would be much better to correct that Waldmeier anomaly of 1950-2000 rather than the entire record.
This was considered but met with resistance from operational users who would then be forced to change their programs. So we have no choice in the matter.

What about when even better telescopes come around? will the entire data set need to be re-corrected?
By design sunspots are still counted with [or reduced to ] small telescopes [and will always be – by design].

This goes to the point that lost information cannot be recreated, but new information can always be removed. For example if it is desired to account for the effects of going from the Wolf 37 mmx20 telescope to the Wolfer 80mmx64 (or a more modern telescope) I could envision that it would be easy and simple to create a filter that would reduce the fidelity of the more modern image to the older one, and then count the spots as it would have been done then.
Even better, since both old telescopes still exist we can [and do] simply count using them as well [as controls].

Regarding your point (I’m paraphrasing) that the sun does not influence climate as there has been no ‘grand maximum’, nor a long term trend for 300 years, that simply doesn’t make sense.
But that is what the data shows. As solar activity has not shown any trend, but climate has, what is one to conclude?

Besides… why stop at 1710? (300 hundred years ago) why not go back to 1600? the long term trend would certainly change then.
Because there is very little good data before 1710. A goal of the 4th SSN workshop is to re-examine what exists before 1750. There are attempts to reconstruct solar activity back to the Maunder Minimum. Much evidence favor the view that activity back then was very similar to what we saw at the latest solar minimum in 2008-2009.

John F. Hultquist says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:36 pmThe international effort toward corrections make sense to me. So, not a problem for me. I was wondering why others think this should not be done.
Your comment was not misleading. But why don’t you do the little exercise I suggested and convince yourself:
In case of the sunspots it is dead-easy to convince oneself what the problem is. Take any drawing from Locarno http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html e.g. from yesterday http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG or made by Sergio Cortesi [observer since 1957]http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121105.JPG
Simply count the spots and compare with the official counts given in the upper right. A counting rule: if there are several black spots within the gray penumbra, count each spot.
It seems that the whiners have gone quiet on this. As I mentioned to Gail: don’t be like the people who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
John – You can also try to count and report your result here for the two cases.
=====
To everyone who whines about this: Do the count yourself and report back what you find.

Andrejs Vanags says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:16 pmIn general a lack of long term trend does not imply a lack of local modulation
My point is that the data shows that the sun is not the major driver of climate. That the sun causes small [of the order of a tenth of a degree] fluctuations is clear from the outset [as TSI varies enough to cause that – of course, there those who deny that TSI has anything to do with the climate : too bad for them]. Some of the dips in temperature [e.g. around 1815] are due to volcanoes, so local fluctuations are clearly possible.

I’m with you Paul – sometimes Leifs attitude is somewhat perplexing. Anyways – I don’t care if I’m shown to be wrong – I still consider that solar energy must be the primary climate driver (over and above the other orbital variations, etc). To me it is simple physics, ignoring any so called GHG effect, for equilibrium energy in= energy out; and any subtle changes in input will take years/decades/centuries to be ‘seen’ based on the massive heatsink that we call ‘earth’ and its ‘non-static’ (i.e. ‘shifting’) biosphere.
The anti-sun guys want us to believe that the aerodynamic efficiency of a car travelling for billions of miles doesn’t get affected by a single bug on the windshield – but in practise, they forget that there are millions of bugs arriving over a period of time! Not a great analogy, but it serves a purpose – a splatted bug doesn’t cause a great deal of aerodynamic efficiency loss – but a whole load of ’em does!
regards
Kev (also B.Sc,M.Sc!)

Andrejs Vanags says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:16 pmDuring a period of ~60 years (a small time period) the ‘Waldmeier’ method was used, which recently it was dropped and they are back to using the old method.
Before making statements like that, better check out the facts first [in lieu of you doing that, you may rely on me having done it]. Slides 19 and 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Clette4.pdf shows that Locarno [which still uses the Waldmeier method – and they should continue to do so] is still the central reference point for the modern series.

Kev-in-Uk says:
December 30, 2012 at 1:41 pmbut in practise, they forget that there are millions of bugs arriving over a period of time! Not a great analogy
As you are aware, it is a bad analogy. The Earth radiates away the energy it receives. To stay in your analogy, the windshield is cleaned continuously.

Quite so. The recovery from the Maunder Minimum when the climate was colder.

I don’t see any problem with Leif’s adjusted graphs.

It seems clear that the level of solar activity has been higher than that required for system equilibrium ever since 1700 or so and ever since then the temperature has slowly risen as the oceans accumulated more energy.

The cause would have been a more positive AO and AAO than during the Maunder with poleward zonal jets, wider subtropical high pressure cells with less clouds and more sunlight into the oceans.

There have been pauses or falls such as the Dalton Minimum and the late 19th century and the mid 20th century and each of them was accompanied by a drop in solar activity as per Leif’s work.

I imagine the charts would have looked much the same from the Dark Ages to the MWP.

Note that exact correlation cannot be expected due to the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation of 60 years or so offsetting or supplementing the solar effect from time to time.

If there is a visible correlation with climate change (and there certainly is) even after all Leif’s efforts then we should regard him as having proved our point.

I do not feel that Leif has succeeded in his avowed intent to detach solar activity from climate changes.

lsvalgaard says: do an exercise
I doubt that I have done the exercise as you envisioned, although that doesn’t matter as explained below.

Figure 237: 2012.XI.5.375
(Don’t know what the XI or last numbers are supposed to tell me)

g = 4, which seems to be the number of fuzzies counted
286, 288, 289 all somewhat similar but not exactly; all counted as 3 each
287 the left and right members are similar to 286; center member may be in the middle of a smudge, but I can’t tell, so either that gets a 2 and the others each 3; or they get 3.5 and the middle one gets a 1.
So this image has a count of 17.

Figure 278: 2012.XII.29.375

g=5,
330 gets a 1
333 seems to get a 1 for the left most dot and then ½ + ½ : total = 2
326 is oval and a bit larger than 330; give 326 a 2
331 seems to have 1 + 2+ 3 = 6
but the numbers 0.5, 1.5 & 4 = 6 also
332 left =3, bottom = 3, top = 1, right = 2
So this image has a count of 20.

So, never having counted sun spots before and having no idea what the rules are, all I am convinced of is that those doing the counting should be doing the same thing in the same way, time after time, and the rules and training should be such that this is possible. Was I expected to just count dots on my screen without regard to size or proximity to other dots or whether or not they are surrounded by the gray penumbra? Sure, that would have convinced me that I had not counted in the same way as someone else. I’ve known that since I read about this issue – probably via a comment or post from you sometime since winter of 2008 when we got a fast internet connection.
So, back to my original point. I expect solar researchers such as yourself and others to provide an appropriate data set. Further, I trust you to do that and explain it all. I do not understand why anyone objects to this.

lsvalgaard says:
December 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm
I’m not claiming certainty about, but you seem to be. It can’t be X. It can’t be Y.
If the data does not support Z, it can’t be Z. Here, I spared you the work:
————————————-

Try a higher quality temperature data set and use 200 years smoothing to allow for shorter time scale natural oscillations.

Sorry – I was being brief in my previous response – in essence, of course the earth radiates away energy it receives – hence the imaginary ‘equilibrium’. No argument there! The question arises as to how long any ‘equilibrium’ takes to establish – and, being somewhat simplistic, taking the OHC as a start point – how long does it take for a few gazzilions of cubic metres of water to heat up and cool down?
Taking the ice core records ‘as read'; we see massive swings in earths temperatures, with various ‘flat’ sections (interglacials) in between showing slight uppy/downy bits! Which parts of these known temperature variations do you suppose indicate the alleged EQUILIBRIUM state? (it matters not your answer!) The glaring fact is simple – there is no fecking ‘real’ equilibrium state! (though I suppose you could take a median position just for fun!?)
On the reasonable assumption that the earths internal heat content is ‘fixed’ (to all intent and purpose) the ONLY thing that can have changed is the rate of external energy radiation OR the rate of incoming radiation – QED – there is no in between state (other than saying both are varying independently and in a cyclic fashion!)
Given that we have never ‘stayed’ in an ice age – or indeed, ‘stayed’ in an interglacial – and working on the reasonable assumption that geothermal/volcanic type heat generation is fairly constant (i.e. as a fairly permanent ‘flux’ from the long term (4.6 billion years) ‘cooling’ earth) – we are left with only incoming radiation change or biospherically based ‘rate of emission’ changes as the direct causes of energy imbalance. Yes?
Now; given that we can only really have these two primary variables – and we take the assumption that solar is indeed FIXED – we are left with the somewhat worrying conclusion that the earth suddenly decides to reflect radiation all on its ownsome – without any external input whatsoever. Equally perverse, sometime after this cool phase, the earth suddenly decides its a wee bit chilly, removes the clouds, etc, and warms up again! Gosh, that’s damned convenient isn’t it!? – the earth doing that as a massive self regulating biosphere? – whilst all the time accepting a CONSTANT energy flux from the sun?! Sorry, but that simply doesn’t compute – something must change in the meantime..
Now – come on Leif – I know full well that you are an intelligent bloke – and I accept that indeed the sun’s output may indeed be fairly ‘regular’ – but don’t you think that earth is ‘more likely’ (to use IPCC speak) to be affected by solar variation than internal variation? To me, it is logical, because otherwise we would have had an earth that boiled dry, or ended up as a permanent snowball! Of course, I am not disputing all the other past effects, past Co2 concentrations, vulcanicity etc, but the fundemental basis of energy in = energy out, remains – and there is no reason to assume that the earth ‘self performs’ the temperature swings observed!
As an aside, for those knowledgeable in the logic method – if the earth has all these positive and negative climatic feedbacks in place – why the flip would it ever ‘bug out’ of the normal range? which brings me conventiently to the next point, which is what IS the NORMAL range? – because, sure as eggs are eggs, the normal range is UNLIKELY to be illustrated by current temperatures!
No, sorry, Leif – much as I’d like to believe that the earth is an isolated, insulated body floating in space without external influence – it just ain’t so. Whether its partly simple solar irradiance, partly CGR;s, geomagnetic fluxes, solar winds, HUV, etc, etc – it doesn’t matter a toss! – these effects all amount to the same thing – a change in the incoming/outgoing energy equation and it is THEY that cause a subsequent change in the earths climate. You can piss about all you want trying to say it’s some other ’cause’ – but the NET effect must be a change in incoming energy vs outgoing energy!
Put another, more simple way, the day someone comes up with proof that the ice ages (and interglacials) were caused by biospheric or other ‘earthbound’ causes, is the day I will renounce solar as the main climate driver! Until then, it is the only logical derivation…

Stephen Wilde says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm
“It seems clear that the level of solar activity has been higher than that required for system equilibrium ever since 1700 or so and ever since then the temperature has slowly risen as the oceans accumulated more energy.”

I suppose I should add that to me – ‘solar variation’ encompasses all the reasons for incoming solar incident radiation variation, from orbital changes, milankovitch, solar wind, even lunar transits!,etc, etc – not simply, a direct ‘measure’ of the solar output – which we already know varies by at least 1.4 w/m2 from some poxy 30-40 years of direct measurement in anycase!

This WIKI image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey, an agency of the United States Department of Interior. Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/

An article/paper of some interest.

The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research?
Abstract:
We discuss how, in the 1970’s, Eddy took clues from the historical researches of Spörer and Maunder in the 19th century to draw attention to the virtual absence of sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715. This “Maunder Minimum” is not only of interest to solar physicists in the context of the theory of solar magnetic activity, and to stellar astrophysicists working on the properties of cool stars, but may also be a vital clue to the influence of the variability of the Sun’s power output on terrestrial climate. Without the availability of the historical documentary records the long-term variability of the Sun implied by the Maunder Minimum would not have come to light, and the consequent advances in stellar physics and in palaeoclimatology would not have been possible.

The Role of Libraries and Archives

Without at least partial records of solar behaviour from 1645 to 1715 the whole question of the Maunder Minimum would never have been opened. Even if, in the end, it is not possible to be fully clear about the degree of absence of activity during this period, and even if in the end it turns out that solar-like stars do not in fact show Maunder minima, the investigation sparked off by this issue will have proved invaluable. Important progress will have been made in our understanding of the magnetic variability of solar-like stars, of the mechanism responsible for the solar magnetic field, and in the internal modelling of the Sun. Major advances in using the fossil record on Earth to investigate past climate are being made, chiefly in response to the solar climatologists. The fossil record is, of course, a very special type of archive, but in historical archives there are surely documents still to be unearthed relevant to the solar-terrestrial relation, both in Europe and in the Asian countries. The case of the Maunder Minimum is a clear example of how historical records can be of value in supporting modern competitive astronomical research, as well as in the associated field of palaeoclimatology. It should serve as a warning to those who may wish to reduce the scope or support for astronomical libraries and archives. We can never be sure of what future generations may pick up from an archive or a well maintained historical library, or on the contrary of what they may lose for ever if we are too casual in our support for the maintenance of records of all types.

Anthony Watts says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:34 pmHere are my numbers. I’ve never counted spots off drawings before, so I have no idea if I did it correctly or not.
Cagnotti drawing http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG 12 spots
Cortesi drawing http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121105.JPG 6 spots
Anthony had the courage to actually count the spots.
Here are my counts:
2012/12/29 1 1 3 4 3 total 12; official 2 1 6 9 2 total 20;
2012/11/05 1 3 1 1 total 6; official 3 8 3 3 total 17;
For 2012: 6858; official 10841; ratio 10841/6858 = 1.58
So, the official count which is the basis for the official sunspot number is 58% higher than what the observers would have counted before ~1946 when they only counted each spot once, regardless of size.

John F. Hultquist says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:44 pmSo, never having counted sun spots before and having no idea what the rules are
You tried to emulate Waldmeier’s weighting scheme. I asked you simply to count the black dots. Every black dot is counted once. If there are 3 black dots, the count is three, etc.
Try again, please

I do not understand why anyone objects to this.
Because they don’t like the result, simple as that.

Manfred says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:50 pmNow; given that we can only really have these two primary variables – and we take the assumption that solar is indeed FIXED – we are left with the somewhat worrying conclusion that the earth suddenly decides to reflect radiation all on its ownsome
Every complex enough system has random fluctuations.

there is no reason to assume that the earth ‘self performs’
And there is no reason to assume that the sun ‘self performs’. Of course, some would swear that the planets are doing it to the Sun. Yet another unknown mechanism is invoked.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 30, 2012 at 4:07 pmThat is way too simplistic, you are essentially implying that forcing would be directly proportional to Ap level, you don’t know that for sure.
What we do know for sure is that the Ap level is directly proportional to the product of the solar wind magnetic field and the square of the solar wind speed, and is directly proportional to the energy deposited in the Earth’s atmosphere by the solar wind.

Kev-in-Uk says:
December 30, 2012 at 4:24 pmwhich we already know varies by at least 1.4 w/m2 from some proxy 30-40 years of direct measurement in any case!
Which will yield less than 0.1 degree heating.

Gail Combs says:
December 30, 2012 at 4:49 pmWe can never be sure of what future generations may pick up from an archive or a well maintained historical library, or on the contrary of what they may lose for ever if we are too casual in our support for the maintenance of records of all types.
The revision of the sunspot number relies heavily on archives and historical records. We urge that all original data be permanently kept and digitized, and have already gone a long way towards that.

A person after my own heart.
And yet you shy away from convincing yourself of the validity of the revision, in spite of the ease of such a test. You earn the right to criticize by performing the test and showing it fails.

Gail Combs:We can never be sure of what future generations… may lose for ever if we are too casual in our support for the maintenance of records of all types.
Hear, hear! Starting with card catalogues, so I can find what I’m looking for.
: > )

Ulric Lyons says:
December 30, 2012 at 1:45 pmI’m sure most five year olds on the planet could point to roughly where the colder periods are through this graph
To help your five-year old I have global temperatures since 1850 on the Ap-graph: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-Ap-Global-Temps-1850-2012.png
He will have a hard time finding any meaningful correlation:

Gail Combs says:
December 30, 2012 at 4:49 pmWe can never be sure of what future generations may pick up from an archive or a well maintained historical library, or on the contrary of what they may lose for ever if we are too casual in our support for the maintenance of records of all types.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
From the original records we reconstruct composite time series as new data becomes available or when calibration errors are discovered. This is normal and important scientific practice. Especially when the correction is transparent, well-documented, and easily checked by anybody. Even you can contribute to that by performing the little test I suggested. Running away from it is no solution.

According to the graph above between 1880 and 1900 THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE declined by 1/10th of one degree Celsius.
Really?
I strongly suggest that any rational person should try saying that first sentence out loud…as they say it, note the ‘dates’, the word ‘Global’ and the ‘1/10th of a degree’.
Then consider this, today the best scientists, with the latest equipment including satellites cannot agree on the global temperature to 1/10th of a degree…but hey they’ve got 1880 nailed…and the cosmic ray intensity in 1880 too…using proxies from ice core samples apparently….
And we’re arguing with them about this…sheesh!

Lief Svalgaard quoted me saying “the ‘Waldmeier’ method was used, which recently it was dropped and they are back to using the old method.” and said “Before making statements like that, better check out the facts first [in lieu of you doing that, you may rely on me having done it]”

Dr. Svalgaard, I made that comment based on your comment above that: “The problem starts in the 1940s when Waldmeier began to count larger spots more than once [up to five times dpending on size]. He even writes so specifically. The effect of that is a 20% increase of the sunspot number. When we noticed that a few years back, we began to ALSO count each spot only once as was done before 1945. Even the current observers on which the modern sunspots are based participated in the counting ”
Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. Although I am surprised that it was not widely know until recently how the weights were applied to the sun spot number count.

I dont get your challenge to count spots. Of course a weighted count will be different than a single count. That is not the point, the point is what to do about that difference, and I was objecting to ‘correcting’ all data prior to 1945. Specially since the ‘new’ weighted count method is more subjective (for example there is no guidance as to a weight of 4 vs. 5) it would not be so problematic if the single count was recorded as well, which I believe you have proposed and I hope it is carried forwards.

A far more interesting challenge would be to ask us to count the ‘groups’, for which the rules appear to be more subjective.

In any event..could you clarify something? I understand that the TSI (visible only) may not have changed much even during the solar minimums.. (low sun spot numbers) but is it your contention that all radiations from the sun (including UV) have been equally constant? Is it also your position that the GCR have stayed similarly constant? implying the TSI is a proxy for all of them?

Andrejs Vanags says:
December 30, 2012 at 9:11 pm“When we noticed that a few years back, we began to ALSO count each spot only once as was done before 1945. Even the current observers on which the modern sunspots are based participated in the counting”
It was implied that we did this in parallel with the old method, of course.

Although I am surprised that it was not widely know until recently how the weights were applied to the sun spot number count.
Waldmeier was very secretive about this. He was [we believe] afraid somebody else would ‘scoop’ him and undermine his status as the ‘official’ counter. He was particular critical about the ‘American’ sunspot number which the US began during WWII because they needed real-time sunspot numbers for military purposes [prediction of communication blackouts].

I dont get your challenge to count spots. Of course a weighted count will be different than a single count.
This is what people seem not to understand. I want thrm to see this for themselves so there can be no doubt about this.

That is not the point, the point is what to do about that difference, and I was objecting to ‘correcting’ all data prior to 1945. Specially since the ‘new’ weighted count method is more subjective (for example there is no guidance as to a weight of 4 vs. 5) it would not be so problematic if the single count was recorded as well, which I believe you have proposed and I hope it is carried forwards.
There is precedent for this. Rudolf Wolf did the same in the 1870s when he discovered that the older values should be increased by 25% to compensate for the difference between Schwabe and Wolf. Furthermore, the US Air force objects to correcting the values after 1945, because the SSN is used in operational programs which the Air Force does not want to change [which is a potent argument]. So we have no choice in the matter. About abandoning the weighting and only use a single count we are of the firm opinion that it is better that Locarno continue the way they have been counting since 1957. We shall improve the homogeneity by adjusting the old values only.

A far more interesting challenge would be to ask us to count the ‘groups’, for which the rules appear to be more subjective.
The ‘group’ issue is indeed very important, but not what I was after. To re-iterate: I simply wanted people to convince themselves that weighting causes a problem and a discontinuity in the data. Once such a discontinuity is identified it seems obvious that it must be corrected. I’m amazed and puzzled by how some people cling to the idea of a sacrosanct ‘precious historical record’ as something which cannot be touched, even compare it to the GISS-adjusted temperatures as an attempt to support a personal theory or notion. The venom you can smell dripping from the fangs of such people is palpable. Perhaps their irrational resistance stems from the obvious consequence of the revision, namely that there is no Modern Grand Maximum to explain Global Warming.

is it your contention that all radiations from the sun (including UV) have been equally constant?
At minimum, yes, with the caveat that at some minima the activity may not have died away completely as the two cycles often overlap. If you correct for that, I think we get the same value for all variables. I came to that conclusion rather long ago http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf even before I realized the problem with the sunspot number.

Is it also your position that the GCR have stayed similarly constant? implying the TSI is a proxy for all of them?
essentially yes, with the above caveat. Also, what people refer to as TSI reconstructions [before 1978] are really just that: TSI-values derived from other variables: sunspots, GCRs, geomagnetic activity, the lot.

For the leif of me I donot get why anyone would want to rely on sunspot numbers and other stupid sun data to evaluate the heat coming through the atmosphere. Obviously you have a combination of factors influencing heat coming through, some of which depend on the sun and some depend on earth.
Much better to look at maxima of which we have reasonable accurate records going back 40 years.

Remember that I have done a fit from all measurements of maxima obtained from 47 weather stations selected randomly but balanced by latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland (longitude does not matter as earth turns every 24 hours and the seasonal shift in earth’s axis does not matter either if you look at yearly average temperature results).
The summary of all these results is that the speed of warming/cooling for maxima in degrees C/ annum now is: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).

that would be better or just as good as the sine wave with 88 years wave length, be my guest!
I would appreciate your help

So long as nobody comes up with another fit, I would say that by putting the Gleisberg solar cycle into a chart, as I have done, (and others can follow and copy??), I think it is possible for me to estimate that all observed warming is natural or very nearly completely natural.

Consider the fact that we really do not have a global temp. record to speak of since at least around 1925. In those days they just manufactured thermometers, never realizing that after time they need to be re-calibrated…..I have challenged anyone to bring me the calibration certificates of thermometers used in weather stations from before that time, with no response.
This means that if we look at my global sine wave chart above for energy in
(not to be confused with energy-out)

we must rather look at the absolute value (positive) of the increase in the heat coming through the top of the atmosphere from 1927 (85 years ago) until 1950. This means an increase of ca. 0.037/2 (roughly integrated) x 23 = 0.43 degrees K. In the next period from 1950 to 1995, when records were firmly established we are seeing the warming that everyone started to fear, namely 0.037/2 (roughly integrated) x 45 = 0.83 degrees K. From 1995 until 2012 it looks we went down on the maxima by ca. 0.037/2 x 17 = 0.31

So I have 0.43 + 0.83 -0.31= 0.95 degrees K up on the maxima since 1927
I have had a look now at CET maxima and found it rising by 0.0105 degree K per annum from 1927 – 2012. A total of 0.89 K from 1927 which confirms the correctness of my global estimate.
I also had a look now at the increase of CET means and found it increasing by 0.0088 degree C per annum since 1927. This means the ratio of maxima/means is therefore estimated as 1.19.

Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.

“This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout,” he explained. “This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”….source

Any chemist who does analytical work has to be aware of how chemicals can migrate and contaminate glass, plastic and even metal. When doing GC work you have to be aware of the hydrogen embrittlement process by which various metals, most importantly high-strength steel, become brittle and fracture following exposure to hydrogen and be sure your tanks and valves are retired after the ‘expiration date’

One of the commenters here had noted that because of this chemical migration problem, ice cores have the effect of a filter clipping off the high peaks of the CO2 data. In other words smearing and leveling the data.

That’s OK, I had fully positive results with your first graph:
which is impressive considering how compressed the Y-axis is!
Obviously the correlation is not lock-step year by year because of ENSO making short term peaks in temperature when Ap drops strongly, nonetheless the decadal trends are all too obvious.

Not really. What puts Nuccitelli at a disadvantage is seeing what the planet is doing. That graph easily deconstructs all the wild-eyed hand waving by all the propagandists like Nuccitelli, in their attempt to convince us that War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and CO2 causes runaway global warming.

Who should we believe, Richard? Nuccitelli? Or Planet Earth? They can’t both be right. One of them is lying.

Actually, for the graph you show, it is in fact quite clear who is lying: It is the person who produced that graph. By my calculation, they have chosen to scale the data for CO2 and temperature so that the CO2 rise corresponds to a temperature increase of ~0.94 C per decade, which is about five times or more the increase that has been seen during the previous decades and has been predicted for the near future. If they had scaled their graph correctly, it would have been obvious that the temperature fluctuations are just too large to conclude much of anything in regards to whether the temperature is or is not following the expected relationship. (It also conveniently ends during the strong 2008 La Nina.)

The fact that this graph has continued to fool you despite the fact that the error in this and previous similar graphs has been pointed out by me countless times also says something about the complete inability of some people to alter their discredited arguments even when they can’t defend them.

HenryP says:
December 31, 2012 at 12:16 amFor the leif of me I do not get why anyone would want to rely on sunspot numbers and other stupid sun data to evaluate the heat coming through the atmosphere.
As long as there was a Modern Grand Maximum (MGM) then the sun nuts would happily rely on stupid sun data to explain global Warming. If there is no MGM then they have a problem, which explains their denial of the non-existence of MGM.
And Gail still does not have courage to look through Galileo’s telescope.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 31, 2012 at 5:03 amnonetheless the decadal trends are all too obvious
Including the all to obvious drop during two of the strongest cycles in the 1940-1950s. What matters is the centennial trend.

Gail Combs says:
December 31, 2012 at 8:43 amhttp://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121229.JPG = 12 plus two faint/smug?http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121105.JPG = 6 plus one faint smug
Thank you, Gail.
As you can see the simple single count compared to the official counts were 12 vs. 20 and 6 vs. 17. This inflation is the result of the weighting introduced by the Zurich observers in the 1940s. Before that time weighting was not used, so Wolfer, for example would have reported 12 and 6 just as you, I, and Anthony do. Careful study of the inflation shows that it happened equally to both low and high solar activity. We can thus undo the weighting by a simple, single scale factor. This is the revision we are talking about. There is no doubt in anybody who has spent any time at all on this problem that the revision is necessary and possible. No corruption of archives or loss of information is implied. I’m glad you now can realize this and wholeheartedly endorse the revision.

Migraines are not recommended when you want to really see something. Darn flashes make it hard even to read.
The flashes are you seeing the light :-)
Seriously, I hope the migraine will let up and let you enjoy the New Year.

Ulric Lyons says:
December 31, 2012 at 8:53 amSC 8 for example was a larger cycle, but there were very cold episodes through mid to late 1830′s.
And the solar wind magnetic field was strong in the 1830s:http://www.leif.org/research/“Radial Component of HMF 1835-2010.gif”
So, when they fit it is good, when they don’t we are not discussing them. Fair enough.

I doubt there is a 88 years component in the temperature record. There are ~60 and ~20 yrs components pointed out several times.
But note there is also a long term trend which could be the solar MGM (yes Leif, you still have to look at the integral, not the individual peaks) or man made or both.

henry@leif
don’t need any MGM.
figured it all out.
next 3 decades will be cold/colder/coldest
I am visiting Holland at the moment and I am getting a bit depressed about that.
Although I should not be worried much about that seeing as that I live in Africa…..

lgl says:
December 31, 2012 at 9:29 amyou still have to look at the integral
Perhaps you should integrate your EMB-AM ‘effect the same way:lgl says:
December 30, 2012 at 7:23 am
And Jupiter-Earth-Venus driving it all: http://virakkraft.com/EMB-AM.png

Good heavens! Must every thread be invaded by solarists, (who fail completely to rule out the null hypothesis which is adequately and mechanistically explained by the highly variable and leaky-roofed planet we stand on), just to be “burned” by Leif’s Sun? Do what I did. When I first thought this temperature trend must be related to the Sun, I was advised to read a book about the Sun’s properties. I read it closely and I refer to it often when I read comments here so I can discern those comments with a good dose of skepticism.

Get a grip on the mechanics of the Sun’s affect on Earth and a grip on the Earth’s affect on incoming Solar properties. Then come back and debate your stance.

60 year, 66 year, or 88 year short cycle. Or, as I asked earlier in a related thread, why should we be “forced” – or limited to – into a simple assumption that a single, fixed-period, short year climate cycle is correct at all: Is there any reason to assume that the climate short cycle is limited to a single constant period over longer time frames?

Certainly “our” simple sine-wave plots ARE “easier to write” if we limit ourselves (our plots of past temperatures) to simple summations of forever-constant simple sine waves …. but a humble observer at this point in time cannot give an absolute physically-based “reason” from first principles “why” the climate seems to be composed of a long-term and short term cycles as it resonates in the interval between deep ice ages.

So be it. Don’t try to make the climate “simple” …

Look for a short term cycle of varying periodicity in the past data, find that periodicity – IF it exists at all – THEN start looking for the root cause of the variance. There is – from today’s satellite data of the entire global – a known random variation just under +/- 0.2 degrees C between any three sequential months.

Start looking for a short term cycle of more than +/- 0.3 degrees from a long-term baseline cycle, assuming such a short term cycle will itself vary between 66 to 88 years at different times. Once you know that short term cycle exists – IF it exists at all – then you can start looking for the causes of such a cycle.

lgl says:
December 31, 2012 at 11:55 amIsn’t the next strong variation (above the 11yr cycle) around 100 years? The interval must be well above 100 years, but less than the oceans equilibrium time (which I do not know)
So you don’t know what the integral looks like. Perhaps integrating over 156 years, which will divide the last 312 years [where we have data] into two halves. The integral over the first half is 53 and over the 2nd half it is 60, hardly a Grand Maximum.
Now what people call the Modern Grand Maximum is illustrated in the two small inserts on this plot of sunspot activity since 1700: http://www.leif.org/research/Modern-Grand-Maximum-NOT.png
It should be clear that there is no MGM.

lgl says:
December 31, 2012 at 11:55 amThe interval must be well above 100 years, but less than the oceans equilibrium time (which I do not know)
Whether there is a SOLAR MGM does not depend on the oceans.

Hale’s observations revealed that the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years. However, because very nearly all manifestations of the solar cycle are insensitive to magnetic polarity, it remains common usage to speak of the “11-year solar cycle”.

Climate may not be “insensitive to magnetic polarity.”

vukcevic says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:57 am

“The agenda that sun doesn’t affect climate, one way or the other, whatever the mechanism/s may be, is becoming less and less convincing.”

Just wanted to give you moral support, buddy. I’ve personally given up on Leif. Whatever the breadth of his knowledge, it is not mathematically deep, and it is pointless to argue with him.

Bart says:
December 31, 2012 at 12:51 pmWow. It really hadn’t occurred to you that the integration is a running sum?
Precision in word and expression is a prerequisite in science. If you mean a ‘running sum’, call it a running sum.

lgl says
I see no reason why means and maxima should have different cycle times, do you? Also I doubt we will continue to cool longer than until 2035

henry says
big difference.
Earth stores energy in its oceans, waters, vegetations, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor. I also found that earth’s inner core, molten hot iron, also changes position sometimes, creating more heat in one place and less in another. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be very confusing.
Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in.
Depending on the factors, there could be a lag of five years or an enhancement of 5 years.
So true, 2035 is very possible. As will be 2045.

Leif: I took a look at the Harder paper to see if it really says the opposite of what the SOD claims, and Harder’s abstract does seems to confirm your interpretation, that in his examination of the SOURCE data, wavelengths above a certain energy level rise rather than fall when solar activity declines:

[Spectral Solar Irradiance] values for wavelengths with a brightness temperature greater than 5770 K show a brightening with decreasing solar activity, whereas those with lower brightness temperatures show a dimming.

Higher brightness temperatures mean shorter wavelengths, right? So he seems to be saying that there is less radiation at the shortest wavelengths when solar activity declines (a downward rather than upward uv-shift, at least for wavelengths at a high enough energy level).

But the paper goes on to present the opposite relationship between brightness temperature and wavelength. Don’t know how it all works, but he has a graph (figure 2) that shows wavelengths as getting longer as brightness temperature goes up, and his graphs of how radiation in individual wavelength ranges changed between 2004 and 2007 as solar activity declined shows that that in all uv ranges (figures 1b and 1c), radiation did decline.

The paper doesn’t actually seem to be saying anything about this uv shift being larger or smaller than expected, so I really don’t know what the SOD is talking about. (Maybe Harder just reported the data and OTHER people then noted that the uv-shift was much larger than expected. It would make sense for the SOD to still attribute this finding Harder. Or maybe there is as second Harder 2009 that notes the unexpected size of the shift.)

The abstract of the linked Harder paper just takes AR4 to task for looking at TSI variation without taking into account the effects of spectral shift. I think AR4 did discuss spectral shift, but that’s not the same thing as taking it into account. Here Harder is correct, the “consensus” computer models used in both AR4 and the draft AR5 only take TSI variation into account. As the Harder-mentioning paragraph notes (SOD p. 11-57), no RF effects from spectral shift are included in the models cited by AR5.

Can anyone explain how higher brightness temperatures can correspond to longer wavelengths in the Harder paper? Sure seems backwards to me.

lgl says:
December 31, 2012 at 12:58 pmMaybe there isn’t a power maximum but there is a energy maximum. The oceans make that an important distinction.
apart from the nonsense above not being power but energy, the oceans do not determine if the Sun has a MGM. The ‘Running Sum’ [where each data point is the sum of the 156 years before it] looks like this http://www.leif.org/research/The-Running-Sum.png

I do not have any experience that could merit any meaningful scientific contribution, but, whilst many may disagree, I do appreciate your fortitude and resilience. Now’t ever wrong in making people think, especially as it provides us all with the opportunity to do the same.

Also Happy New Year to all who contribute, I find this subject amazing and bewildering, thank you for allowing me to be “caveat emptor”

Alec Rawls says:
December 31, 2012 at 1:35 pmso I really don’t know what the SOD is talking about
The whole Harder affair is misinterpretation upon misinterpretation by many people [including Harder :-)]. First there is the question about calibration of the data [the spectral irradiance is much harder [no pun intended] to measure because when you split the whole spectrum into many small bins there are fewer photons in each bin and noise and difficulty explodes], then there is the question about if the Harder ‘effect’ is unique for the time over which it was measured or is a general feature of every cycle. The jury is still out, so one shouldn’t hang too much on this.
There is also confusion about what people think of as ‘variability’. Is that of level or of fluctuations?

My take on it is that what Harder is trying to say is that he finds that there is less UV but more Visible and Infrared in the Total, than what people thought. The deficit UV and the excess Visible+IR cancelling out so that total TSI is less variable that its parts. But this is not a ‘fact’ yet as more data is needed to decide the issue conclusively.

Is it possible to generate a solar modulation index without using sunspots at all? Shapiro et al. 2011 calibrate the 10be record using both sunspots and neutron counts, but it seems they might be able to do it using just the neutron counts. From their paper (via WUWT):

The modulation potential used in the calculations is based on the composite of data determined from the cosmogenic isotope records of 10Be and neutronmonitor. 10Be data are available up to about 1970 (McCracken et al. 2004) and neutron monitor data, which are used to calculate the current solar modulation potential, are available since the 1950s.

Is that enough overlap to get a decent calibration? What are the results when only neutrons are used (how does the modern era, post 1930) look compared to earlier solar levels?

Alec Rawls says:
December 31, 2012 at 2:27 pmIs it possible to generate a solar modulation index without using sunspots at all?
Yes and no. The main problem using cosmic rays is that we measure in ice cores depends on weather and climate too, and we don’t know how to separate that dependence from a true solar dependence. The GCR proxies show a very strong modulation during the Maunder Minimum [slide 28 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Wind%20During%20the%20Maunder%20Minimum.pdf

What that means is unclear. My own take is that the solar dynamo was still going strong and the heliosphere and solar wind was not much different from today. Why we couldn’t see the spots is the puzzle [that may have a solution].

Is that enough overlap to get a decent calibration? What are the results when only neutrons are used (how does the modern era, post 1930) look compared to earlier solar levels?
There is not enough for as decent calibration. Me have muon data 1935-1956 and neutron data from 1952 on, but the muon data [‘ion-chamber data] does not have an absolute calibration and there is controversy about how to ‘splice’ the two series together. This is, in fact, one of the main [still unresolved] issues of the ISSI 233 workshop that I’m leading http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
See also slide 47.

Thanks for showing the MGM Leif
If you use the Steinhilber data and go back to say 1500 you will see it dropping all the way, congratulations. And the ocean determine that power over time is the important parameter, not the instant power. x watts does not tell you how much 1 liter of water will warm. x watts for y seconds will. Shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.

lgl says:
December 31, 2012 at 2:55 pmThanks for showing the MGM
It takes a real believer to think that the plot shows a MGM, but then you are one.
And again: the oceans do not determine if the Sun has a MGM.
Your power/energy thing is misleading. If the integration [summation] interval is constant there is strict proportionality between power and energy with the number of seconds being the proportionality constant. So, the power and energy vary exactly the same way. Shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.
About Steinhilber: we do not have a good calibration of the GCR flux. The fluctuations called Maunder, Dalton, etc minima are likely to a large degree determined by the climate rather than the Sun, but go on dreaming…

lsvalgaard says:
December 31, 2012 at 3:05 pmAbout Steinhilber: we do not have a good calibration of the GCR flux. The fluctuations called Maunder, Dalton, etc minima are likely to a large degree determined by the climate rather than the Sun, but go on dreaming…

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core
measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based”

As I have said before, it is the shift within TSI that causes the warming and cooling periods each of 44 years. The spectrum of water should also be looked at again, to see exactly where in the UV band it absorbs.

Anyway, it is new year here. . wishing you all God’s richest wisdom for 2013.

By the way, a negative PDO explains the slight cooling between ~1945-1975, countering the effect of concurrent high solar activity.

The subsequent jump in warming between ~1978-1998 co-incided with a positive PDO between about ~1970-2000, with concurrent high solar activity, so Nuccitelli’s comment that the jump in warming in the late 20th century “doesnt make sense” based on solar trends shows he simply doesn’t understand the effect of the PDO COUPLED with solar activity throughout the 20th century to explain the temperature trends, and mostly because he isn’t looking at natural variability in any depth in the first place.

Also, the flat temperature since ~2000 also neatly fits in with a negative PDO, and with the sun’s high activity now waning, and the solar heat lag after 1996 probably close to being reached by now, the earth’s temperature might well drop between now and ~2035, before the next positive PDO (and the small effect from C02), meaning the IPCC’s models will become more and more laughable.

Wonder what the alarmists will do if the earth doesn’t warm in the next 20 years?, go back to their day jobs I expect. It will take some truly Enron style accounting from the alarmists to explain away things if the earth doesn’t warm in the next 20 years.

henry says
I think the relationship is co-incidental, but could be related

proposed explanation of the 90-100 year weather cycle:
1) from 1951, ozone has been found decreasing exactly when global warming started , if we look at the maxima. Contrary to popular belief, I am convinced the decrease in ozone was not due to CFC ‘s at all.
2) we have entered a cooling period, which looking at energy in (maxima), started in 1995 and will last ca. 44 years. Ozone is increasing, exactly from 1995 as well, meaning some shift in UV has taken place that causes more production of ozone.
(more) UV (certain type) + O2 => (more) O3
Same argument applies for HxOx and NxOx compounds TOA which are increasing as well.
The higher concentration of these chemicals TOA causes more back radiation of a certain other type of UV band that would otherwise be absorbed by the oceans and immediately converted to heat. This is because water absorbs strongly at same wavelengths. Due to its high energy content a small shift can cause a considerable loss of energy. This is the amplification effect.
(less) UV (certain type) + H2O => less heat into the oceans.

taken over the whole 80-100 year the net effect of the Gleisberg cycle is of course zero, seeing as the relationship follows an a-c curve.

Leif writes “My reasoning [at least as far as SIM and UV are concerned] is as just described.”

…and is faulty otherwise we would have had much a better model of spectral variance than we did until our understanding changed recently. When UV goes down, visible tends to go up. And nobody noticed this correlation prior to the SIM data? I find that very hard to believe.

Leif writes “That the sun causes small [of the order of a tenth of a degree] fluctuations is clear from the outset [as TSI varies enough to cause that”

Yes but its the variations within the TSI that could be the difference. UV goes down cooling the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and visible goes up warming the surface and meanwhile TSI doesn’t seem to change enough to cause those effects.

Well until we know more, I’d say the jury was out on your beliefs of small TSI change = “not the reason”

No, you are misleading people to believe, using the following case, the ocean will have the same temperature i year 5 as ‘now’, year 25, because the peak values are the same. Everybody, except you and climate scientists will know that is nonsense. Peak power does not determine the temperature of water, energy does, basic.

If this is correct then Tmin is going to be a poor choice and because Tmean includes Tmin, so is Tmean. Therefore the use of Tmax should give results without as much UHI effect (or TOB) confounding. (Steve did not swat the guy down and neither did anyone else)

So we average TSI then average temps . Then we compare an average to an average. You will find error theory is complicated but in essence multiple A+B is averaged out after all known factors are taken into consideration. You cannot average A then average B it is mathematical nonsense. The achieving people in the world laugh at the irrelevant garbage put forward by the mathematically inept IPCC. Ask any surveyor.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 1, 2013 at 4:15 amWhen UV goes down, visible tends to go up. And nobody noticed this correlation prior to the SIM data? I find that very hard to believe.
Belief is one thing, knowing is another [and usually better].

Leif writes in a non-reply “Belief is one thing, knowing is another [and usually better].”

Whereas over at Real Climate they said

“What is a surprise is that for the visible wavelengths, SIM seems to suggest that the irradiance changes are opposite in sign to the changes in the TSI. To be clear, while the TSI has decreased since 2003 (as part of the descent into the current solar minimum), SIM seems to indicate that the UV decreases are much larger than expected, while irradiance in visible bands has actually increased! This is counter to any current understanding of what controls irradiance on solar cycle timescales.”

So you see the correlation really is new. Unless you have an older paper that shows otherwise that the guys at RC weren’t aware of.

Roughly 75% of the 20th century warming was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. As the period of warming due to solar magnetic cycle change is coming to an end, I have selected this period to start to the defense of the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary climate.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. There is hence smoking gun evidence that sun is a serial climate changer. The question is not does solar magnetic cycle changes cause planetary temperature changes but rather how does the solar magnetic cycle changes cause planetary temperature changes.

It possible to explain in detail how the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary temperature using mechanism explained in peer reviewed papers. It is also possible using observational data in peer review papers and logic to support the assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

The late 20th century warming was caused by solar wind bursts, that create a space charge differential in the ionosphere. The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions which cause a reduction of low level clouds in 40 to 60 degree latitudes both hemisphere and an increase in high level clouds in the Northern high latitude and a reduction in high level clouds in the Southern high latitude regions which creates what is called the polar see saw. The polar see-saw is the name climatologist have the observations that the proxy (O16/O18 isotope ratio) Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet records show cycles where the Greenland Ice warms and the Antarctic ice cools and visa versa. Ice bore temperature proxy data indicates that see-saw warming and cooling is simultaneous and cyclic.

I will in the next comment provide links to a paper that notes the 20th century warming correlates with a reduction in planetary cloud cover. The must be physical cause, an explanation as to why planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 20th century. As noted in the next comment there was an increase in solar wind bursts during the declining phase of the last two solar magnetic cycles.

The following paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity” shows there is correlation of the Ak parameter which changes in response to solar wind burst and planetary temperature changes.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for
global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

We will now compare the properties and geoeffectiveness of the two types of solar drivers – Hight Speed Streams (HSSs) from coronal holes, and CMEs, additionally dividing the CMEs into two types – MCs and non-MC CMEs (which we will further denote as simply CMEs). Our study covers 11 years, from 1992 to 2002. In this period we have 92 MCs (Georgieva et al. 2005) and 128 CMEs from the list of Cane and Richardson (2003) from which all events identified as MCs have been removed and 126 CHs identified in the OMNI database (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ omniweb). Figure 2 presents a comparison of the mean solar wind speed for the three types of solar drivers while Figure 3 shows the solar cycle variation of their speed.

Figure 2 demonstrates that the speed of the solar wind originating from CHs is much higher than of the solar wind associated with CMEs and MCs. The yearly averaged speed of solar wind from CHs and MCs are comparable around sunspot maximum, and higher than the speed of CMEs, and everywhere outside sunspot maximum the fastest solar wind originates from CHs (Figure 3). Similarly, the average geoeffectiveness of solar wind from CHs is highest outside sunspot maximum (Figure 4) while around sunspot maximum the most geoeffective solar driver are MCs.

The following is a review paper by Brian A. Tinsley, G.B. Burns, and Limin Zhou “The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate” provides observational data and a link to previous peer reviewed papers to support the assertion that solar windbursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere and that which removes cloud forming ions. In addition the charge movement affects precipitation and cloud lifetimes and the movements of the jet stream.

As will be reviewed in Section 3, the onset times and durations of the meteorological responses agree with those of the space weather forcing agents.

The results will demonstrate that Jz by itself forces cloud and weather changes. On the centennial and millennial timescales the proxies for CGR flux and the associated Jz show larger changes than on the decadal timescale. The persistence of the changes for periods of many decades through centuries means that the integrated effects of the GCR and Jz changes could dominate over shorter-term variations due to aerosol and weather and climate noise.

The observations showing clear correlations on the day to-day timescale have been published by Schuurmans and Oort (1969), Wilcox et al. (1973), Mansurov et al. (1974), Olson et al. (1975), Larsen and Kelley (1977), Misumi (1983), Tinsley and Deen (1991), Pudovkin and Veretenenko (1995), Kirkland et al. (1996), Todd and Kniveton (2001), Veretenenko and Thejll (2004), Kniveton and Tinsley(2004) and Roldugin and Tinsley (2004). Also new results by Burns et al. (2007) show high latitude surface pressure changes in response to Jz changes, on the day-today timescale, that are of the same nature as responses to Jz changes caused by the solar wind; however, in this case they are due to Jz changes resulting from ionospheric potential changes due to variations in the low latitude highly electrified convective cloud generators of the global circuit.
The modeled results for the droplet charges p are consistent with the aircraft measurements over Lake Michigan of Beard et al. (2004) who found charges of about 80 e near cloud tops on droplets of radii about 8 lm, and charges of about _70 e near cloud base on droplet radii of about 6 lm, where e is the elementary charge. The differing signs of the charges at the two boundaries are consistent with the flow of Jz through the cloud, and the magnitudes are sufficient to affect scavenging rates (Tinsley et al., 2001, 2006). The charges on IFN and CCN depend on their radii, and information is needed on the concentrations and size distributions of these in order to calculate scavenging rates.

The following is a link to paper that was published in a book along with other papers that explains how solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. This paper notes two mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary temperature.

The solar magnetic cycle modulates the intensity and magnitude of galactic cosmic rays (old term for high speed particles mostly protons) that strike the earth's atmosphere creating muons (heavy electrons). The muons in turn create ions in the atmosphere. The ions by ion mediate nucleation increase the formation rate of clouds, increase the lifetime of clouds, and increase the albedo of clouds.

Heinrich's book "The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change" provides a good review of the GCR mechanism. GCR also changes as the solar system rotates about the Milky way increasing by a factor of 5 to 10 as the solar system passes through the galactic arms. The period of high GCR correlate with the ice house epochs on the earth.

Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
Observations of changes in cloud properties that correlate with the 11-year cycles in space particle fluxes are reviewed. The correlations can be understood in terms of one or both of two microphysical processes; ion mediated nucleation (IMN) and electroscavenging. IMN relies on the presence of ions to provide the condensation sites for sulfuric acid and water vapors to produce new aerosol particles, which, under certain conditions, might grow into sizes that can be activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Electroscavenging depends on the buildup of space charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds as the vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit encounters the increased electrical resistivity of the clouds. Space charge is electrostatic charge density due to a difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions. Calculations indicate that this electrostatic charge on aerosol particles can enhance the rate at which they are scavenged by cloud droplets. The aerosol particles for which scavenging is important are those that act as in situ ice forming nuclei (IFN) and CCN. Both IMN and electroscavenging depend on the presence of atmospheric ions that are generated, in regions of the atmosphere relevant for effects on clouds, by galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The space charge depends, in addition, on the magnitude of Jz. The magnitude of Jz depends not only on the GCR flux, but also on the fluxes of MeV electrons from the radiation belts, and the ionospheric potentials generated by the solar wind, that can vary independently of the GCR flux. The roles of GCR and Jz in cloud processes are the speculative links in a series connecting solar activity, the solar wind, GCR, clouds and climate. This article reviews the correlated cloud variations and the two mechanisms proposed as possible explanations for these links.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:35 pmSo you see the correlation really is new.
Which you had a hard time believing. But it is not yet sure that the [correlation] is real: these [are difficult] measurements and need to be confirmed first.

William says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:58 pmthe assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
This is your assertion and not established fact. So no long, dubious explanation is needed.

lgl says:
January 1, 2013 at 5:31 amEverybody, except you and climate scientists will know that is nonsense. Peak power does not determine the temperature of water, energy does, basic.
Here is the basics:
At the end of the first 156 years [since 1700 AD] the average sunspot number over that period was 53 [the running sum at that time then 156*53]. At the end of the next 156 years the average sunspot number was 60 over that interval [the running sum at that time was 156*60].
TSI for those two values were 1361 and 1361.442, an increase of 0.0055% resulting in a temperature increase of 0.004 degrees. THAT is basic.

William says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:58 pmThe observations showing clear correlations on the day to-day timescale have been published by Schuurmans and Oort (1969), Wilcox et al. (1973)
I was a coauthor on the Wilcox 1973 paper and we know today that our ‘finding’ was spurious [many of the other ones mentioned are variations on our ‘finding’ and thus spurious as well] and does not describe reality.

[my fingers were cold. Here is what I meant to say:]
lgl says:
January 1, 2013 at 5:31 amEverybody, except you and climate scientists will know that is nonsense. Peak power does not determine the temperature of water, energy does, basic.
Here is the basics:
At the end of the first 156 years [since 1700 AD] the average sunspot number over that period was 53 [the running sum at that time then 156*53]. At the end of the next 156 years the average sunspot number was 60 over that interval [the running sum at that time was 156*60].
TSI for those two sunspot values were 1361.367 and 1361.442, an increase of 0.0055% resulting in a temperature increase of 0.004 degrees. THAT is basic.

Leif,
I presented a paper that shows planetary temperature correlates with variations of Ak. (Ak is a proxy measurement of how solar wind changes affect the planet.) What does your above comment have to do with the observation that planetary temperature varies with Ak?

In reply to Leif’s

William says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:58 pm
the assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
This is your assertion and not established fact. So no long, dubious explanation is needed.

I can if you wish provide observational evidence from additional papers to support the assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget by Nir J. Shaviv

Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04K.

As this paper notes, planetary cloud cover has reduced during the period of warming.

Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000. All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only.

The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

As this paper notes there were increased solar wind bursts during the last solar minimum. The increased solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. Therefore even though GCR was high there was not an increase in planetary cloud cover.

The graph at the top of the thread compares GCR to planetary temperature. The claim is the solar magnetic cycle does not modulate planetary temperature, as GCR is high for the end of solar cycle 23 and planetary temperature does not decrease. The explanation for the lack of cooling is the increase in solar wind bursts which remove cloud forming ions.

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, the sensitivity to variations in the globally averaged relative change in the tropospheric ionization I is consistently fitted with m _ _ (dTglobal/dI) _ 7.5 ± 2_K. Additionally, the sensitivity to radiative forcing changes is l _ dTglobal/dF = 0.35 ± 0.09_KW_1m2, at the current temperature, while its temperature derivative is undetectable with (dl/dT)0 = _0.01 ± 0.04 m2W_1. If the observed CRF/climate link is ignored, the best sensitivity obtained is l = 0.54 ± 0.12_KW_1m2 and (dl/dT)0 = _0.02 ±0.05 m2W_1.

Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19_K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04_K.

The second paper by Shaviv provides data from examining iron meteoroids to determine the long term changes in GCR as the solar system moved in an out of the galactic arms. Shaviv makes a case that the ice epochs, correlate with GCR changes, and that the ice epochs were caused by changes in GCR.

The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth
The short term variability of the Galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) reaching Earth has been previously associated with variations in the global low altitude cloud cover. This CRF variability arises from changes in the solar wind strength. However, cosmic ray variability also arises intrinsically from variable activity of and motion through the Milky Way. Thus, if indeed the CRF climate connection is real, the increased CRF witnessed while crossing the spiral arms could be responsible for a larger global cloud cover and a reduced temperature, thereby facilitating the occurrences of ice ages. This picture has been recently shown to be supported by various data [87]. In particular, the variable CRF recorded in Iron meteorites appears to vary synchronously with the appearance ice ages.

William says:
January 1, 2013 at 9:36 pmWhat does your above comment have to do with the observation that planetary temperature varies with Ak?
You asserted that 75% was due to solar cycles.

I can if you wish provide observational evidence from additional papers to support the assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
There are lots of such papers, as well as there are lots of papers claining that CO2 is the cause

William says:
January 1, 2013 at 9:36 pm
What does your above comment have to do with the observation that planetary temperature varies with Ak?
You asserted that 75% was due to solar cycles.

I can if you wish provide observational evidence from additional papers to support the assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
There are lots of such papers, as well as there are lots of papers claining that CO2 is the cause

William:
I provided a link to a paper that asserts 75% of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. The author of that paper provides data and analysis to support that assertion. As I stated, I have decided to defend the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary temperature, as I believe the planet will cool. The cooling has started and is in the locations predicted by the mechanisms.

I provided a second paper that notes planetary cloud cover decreased during the period of warming. A reduction in planetary cloud cover will result in less sunlight being reflected off into space. Your link also shows a reduction on planetary cloud cover which supports the hypothesis that 75% of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. (If that hypothesis is correct, then the planet will now cool, the question is only when it will cool.)

I provided a link to a paper that provides a mechanism that explains how solar wind bursts modulate planetary clouds. Yes there are solar wind bursts at the end of solar cycles. I provided a link to a paper that noted there were an exception number of solar wind bursts at the end of solar cycle 23 and that the solar wind burst where higher intensity when compared to solar cycle 22.

The observations appear to support the hypothesis that 75% of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. Significant planetary cooling is only possible if 75% of the 20th century warming has due to the solar magnetic cycle.

Solar cycle 24 is not a normal solar cycle. I am truly interested in your comments as it unfolds.

Tim the Toolman says
Yes but its the variations within the TSI that could be the difference. UV goes down cooling the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and visible goes up warming the surface and meanwhile TSI doesn’t seem to change enough to cause those effects

and
To be clear, while the TSI has decreased since 2003 (as part of the descent into the current solar minimum), SIM seems to indicate that the UV decreases are much larger than expected, while irradiance in visible bands has actually increased!

This, incidentally, could be your start point on looking at the SIM data and early findings Henry.

The point is though Leif, while you harp on about how TSI doesn’t change much and Grand Solar Maximums or lack thereof, you’re ignoring an effect that could be at least partly the cause of the recent warming beyond what “TSI” could produce.

Yes, we dont have much SIM data and yes its difficult to form any definite conclusions beyond the fact we just dont know any more.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:11 amWTF? I pointed it out to you mate.
You said:
“And nobody noticed this correlation prior to the SIM data? I find that very hard to believe.”
So, you find it hard to believe that nobody noticed this correlation prior to the SIM data.

What is SIM? If anyone can tell me: Is TSI measured on TOA or is at measured at sea level, below the atmosphere, (on a cloudless day?)
How is TSI measured? if on TOA, how do they prevent deterioration of the sensor?
TSI is measured out in space [no atmosphere] by measuring the heating of the sensor when exposed to direct sunlight. There is degradation, but it is measured and corrected for.

I have argued with Dana on this topic and other topics as well on Yahoo answers for years. I think he got most of his climate science training in the Global Warming Section Forum on Yahoo answers, he is the top answerer that’s why he is a little confused, lol.

TSI for those two sunspot values were 1361.367 and 1361.442, an increase of 0.0055% resulting in a temperature increase of 0.004 degrees. THAT is basic.

The averageing-over-156-years basic, fine. And suddenly there is no water on this planet, fine.
The ocean heat content still has not recovered from the LIA (and probably not even from the last glacial because of the ice feedback). Even if there were 50 years of present day solar activity in the middle of LIA it wouldn’t make much difference. The ocean (and the ice) is a low pass filter for the solar input.

Tim the Toolman quotes:
Conceivably, there might be another missing element (such as a cosmic-ray/cloud connection) that would counteract this physics and restore the expected sign of the change, but no-one has succeeded in finding any mechanism that would quantitatively give anything close the size of effect that would now be required (see our previous posts on the subject).

lgl says:
January 2, 2013 at 9:31 amEven if there were 50 years of present day solar activity in the middle of LIA it wouldn’t make much difference.
So, even if there were a Modern Grand Maximum is wouldn’t make much difference by your argument. I think I could agree with that.
Applying your argument once more: even if there were a 70-yr drop in solar activity, it would not make much difference. Again, that I could agree with.

lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2013 at 7:11 am
“Hence, the red-ﬂash observations would argue against a climatologically important decrease in TSI during that period of time.”

Yet another diversion from the man who says the solar wind speed does not matter with Aurora.
No Leif, the Aurora were at a very low ebb in the late 17th Century, as they were in the Dalton minimum too.http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf

Ulric Lyons says:
January 2, 2013 at 10:38 amYet another diversion from the man who says the solar wind speed does not matter with Aurora.
In the auroral zones there are aurorae ALL THE TIME, every day, every minute, regardless of solar wind speed.
Whether you observe an aurorae at mid- or low-latitude depends the occurrence of a geomagnetic storm depending much more on the magnetic field and its orientation. The Ap [or even better the Dst] index is a decent indicator of the chance of auroral sighting at mid-latitudes.

No Leif, the Aurora were at a very low ebb in the late 17th Century, as they were in the Dalton minimum too
And, as Silverman points out, also during the low activity around and just after 1900. Yet in 1900 the solar wind did not go away. It was, in fact, comparable to recent solar activity.

Ulric Lyons says:
January 2, 2013 at 10:38 amthe solar wind speed does not matter with Aurora.
In the auroral zones there are aurorae ALL THE TIME, every day, every minute, regardless of solar wind speed. Observing aurorae at mid- and low-latitudes requires geomagnetic storms where the real determinant is the solar wind magnetic field strength and [especially] direction.

the Aurora were at a very low ebb in the late 17th Century, as they were in the Dalton minimum too.
And as Silverman points out also at the beginning of the 20th century, where activity was as low as in recent times. Yet the solar wind is still blowing with the same ‘strength’ now and back then and back during the Maunder Minimum. During the 17 century many large comets with conspicuous ion tails were observed. Such tails require a significant solar wind.

lsvalgaard said:
“In the auroral zones there are aurorae ALL THE TIME, every day, every minute, regardless of solar wind speed.”

SHOUTING won’t help you. I’ll go with the graphs from the paper thanks, they are the results from many locations and show a large decrease in sighted Aurora through Maunder and Dalton.

“And, as Silverman points out, also during the low activity around and just after 1900. Yet in 1900 the solar wind did not go away. It was, in fact, comparable to recent solar activity.”

And there have been some record cold periods recently precisely when the solar wind was slow (who said anything about it going away?).

“During the 17 century many large comets with conspicuous ion tails were observed. Such tails require a significant solar wind.”

And what about the comets that were not noticed? there is no such record, unlike cold periods that exactly coincide with a lack of Aurora. The comet observations are undated and therefore of no particular value. For all we know the comet observations were during warmer seasons in Maunder when the SW was faster.

Ulric Lyons says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:08 pmI’ll go with the graphs from the paper thanks
So, you deny that there are aurorae all the time, every day, every minute…

And there have been some record cold periods recently precisely when the solar wind was slow (who said anything about it going away?).
And there has been some recent hot periods as well. Temperature is not correlated with Solar wind speed: http://www.leif.org/research/Correlation-Ap-Temp-Not.png

The comet observations are undated and therefore of no particular value.
All observed comets are very precisely dated. Educate yourself.

Leif reminds us of the conversation ““And nobody noticed this correlation prior to the SIM data? I find that very hard to believe.”
So, you find it hard to believe that nobody noticed this correlation prior to the SIM data.”

But the point I was trying to make was that you thought the ionisation energies show that there is no long term change in UV levels but I dont think thats a good measure because when the previous solar spectral model was put together (with little variation) they could have correlated visible at the earth’s suface with ionisation energies as a proxy for UV and found this relationship before the SIM data. They didn’t (although its one of those obvious things to look at when formulating a spectral model) and hence ionisation energies as we’ve been measuring in the past aren’t a good enough proxy for UV and your belief in UV having no trend over the long term is faulty IMO.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:32 pmBut the point I was trying to make was that you thought the ionisation energies show that there is no long term change in UV levels but I dont think thats a good measure
No, the UV creates the ionosphere. The higher the UV level, the more ions are created. The ions move across the Earth’s magnetic field and an electric current results by induction. The magnetic effects of that current has been measured at ground-level since 1722 when the effect was discovered, so we know what the level of UV has been since then. The physics of this is very well understood:
” In the dynamo region of the ionosphere (100–150 km altitude), atmospheric tides dominate the wind system. These tides generate electromotive forces and drive electric currents by moving the electrically conducting air in the ionosphere through the Earth’s magnetic field [e.g., Richmond, 1979, 1989]. Model calculations of the ionospheric wind-dynamo currents can quantitatively explain the daily variation of the geomagnetic field at middle and low geomagnetic latitudes (below 60º) [e.g., Richmond and Roble, 1987].”

And Visible? And that still doesn’t answer why the correlation was never spotted until very recently between UV and Visible. If ionisation is a good proxy for UV then it should have stood out reasonably clearly. And if it turns out there is no clear correlation then its worse. That means for any value of TSI, you cant tell what the corresponding UV and Visible components actually are and so cant be specific about the atmospheric forcings. You’re shooting in the dark.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:17 pmAnd Visible? And that still doesn’t answer why the correlation was never spotted until very recently between UV and Visible.
Because we have not had any direct measurements of UV as a function of wave length before

If ionisation is a good proxy for UV then it should have stood out reasonably clearly. And if it turns out there is no clear correlation then its worse.

The integrated UV stands out extremely clearly. What we don’r have is any measurements of TSI before 1978.

That means for any value of TSI, you cant tell what the corresponding UV and Visible components actually are and so cant be specific about the atmospheric forcings.
As far as we know about the physics, the magnetic field which is responsible both variations of both UV and TSI does not result in different dependencies.

You’re shooting in the dark.
And you are not? But, no, we are not shooting in the dark as far as UV is concerned. TSI is another story.

Ulric Lyons says:
January 2, 2013 at 3:28 pmObviously the lack of Aurorae
There was that lack at the beginning of the 20th century, yet the solar wind speed was still about 400 km/s

Yes very much so as El Nino’s are a negative feedback to cooling from lower SW speeds
This is your unsubstantiated belief.

One comet in a fairly average September tells us nothing. For all you know Halley’s tail may be well defined and visible with SW speeds less than 300kps, you just don’t know.
We know the dates for all the comets the past 2000 years and some even earlier than that.
Not knowing works both ways. What we do know from the early 1900s when there also were very few aurorae is that the solar wind speed then was around 400 km/s. We can even measure that directly by looking as tail disconnects, e.g. Comet Morehouse in 1908, see. slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.ppt

lsvalgaard said:
“There was that lack at the beginning of the 20th century, yet the solar wind speed was still about 400 km/s”

Looking at the low in the Ap index around 1902, I don’t believe that for a moment:

“This is your unsubstantiated belief.”

It is an astute observation.

“What we do know from the early 1900s when there also were very few aurorae is that the solar wind speed then was around 400 km/s. We can even measure that directly by looking as tail disconnects, e.g. Comet Morehouse in 1908,”

Leif writes “The integrated UV stands out extremely clearly. What we don’r have is any measurements of TSI before 1978.”

I mean stand out clearly when compared to Visible as a correlation.

Leif writes “As far as we know about the physics, the magnetic field which is responsible both variations of both UV and TSI does not result in different dependencies.”

As far as who knows? The fact is that unless proven wrong, the magnetic field which is responsible both variations of both UV and Visible according to the SIM data does result in different dependencies because it was originally thought to have a positive correlation with TSI and it turns out to have been measured to have a negative correlation in the case of Visible. This was unexpected. Obviously its (almost certainly) not new physics but its definitely a different dependency.

Leif writes “And you are not? But, no, we are not shooting in the dark as far as UV is concerned. TSI is another story.”

Once again for luck, its not TSI that necessarily matters as far as atmospheric warming goes, its the components that make it up and if TSI is “unknown”, then those components are very unknown. If the variations are out of phase with the solar cycle (as they seem to be), then there will be some pretty serious head scratching as to the implications and how to deal with that.

Ulric Lyons says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:22 pmLooking at the low in the Ap index around 1902, I don’t believe that for a moment

Comet Moorehouse was just an example. Every comet has tail disconnections. But there are other ways of measuring solar wind speed back then:http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
For 2009 the average speed was 367 km/s for an Ap of 4.0;
for 1901-1902 the average speed was 308 km/s for an Ap of 4.4.
The differences are not significant.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 2, 2013 at 7:41 pmAs far as who knows? The fact is that unless proven wrong, the magnetic field which is responsible both variations of both UV and Visible according to the SIM data does result in different dependencies because it was originally thought to have a positive correlation with TSI and it turns out to have been measured to have a negative correlation in the case of Visible. This was unexpected. Obviously its (almost certainly) not new physics but its definitely a different dependency.
If that dependency is found in all solar cycles, then nothing changes. If it is only for the last cycle, then we don’t need to invoke it for all the past cycles. And it is not clear that the data is any good.

lsvalgaard said:
“For 2009 the average speed was 367 km/s for an Ap of 4.0;
for 1901-1902 the average speed was 308 km/s for an Ap of 4.4.
The differences are not significant.”

Rubbish! that is highly significant for an average over time, and also shows that your claims that the recent low in solar activity was similar to ~100yrs ago are unfounded. Your first reply saying that early in the 20th century the solar wind was ~400km/s was, to be blunt, lying or deceiving or worse.
Of course this low in SW speed had serious impacts on the weather:

Ulric Lyons says:
January 3, 2013 at 8:30 amyour claims that the recent low in solar activity was similar to ~100yrs ago are unfounded. Your first reply saying that early in the 20th century the solar wind was ~400km/s was, to be blunt, lying or deceiving or worse. Of course this low in SW speed had serious impacts on the weather
Picking a year or two does not make anything significant. Here is a comparison between Ap vs. Solar Wind Speed V for the last 8 years and the first 8 years of the 20th century: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-vs-V.png
The slightly different level between the red [now] and blue [back then] is due to the changing strength of the Earth’s magnetic field which influences the effect of the wind on geomagnetic activity. If anything Ap is even lower now than then. And as I have shown there is no impact on the weather from low solar wind speed.
Your picking of a single summer is just silly.

lgl says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:12 amThat alone yes, but together with the rest you get something like this
with what averaging interval? and using Mann’s hockey stick…
With 150 years you get something like this:

Ulric Lyons says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:04 amThe average for 1900.5 to 1907.5 on your paper is ~360km/s. How does that compare (in km/s please) to the average for the last 7ys?
416 km/s

I don’t believe a word of it.
I’m not asking you to believe anything. Doesn’t matter what you believe.

Virtually every single year of a lack of sighted Aurora in the Silverman paper is accompanied by colder weather.
Virtually? And look at his Figure 3 and see the auroral count during the Maunder Minimum.

Ulric Lyons says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:15 amThe average for 1900.5 to 1907.5 on your paper is ~360km/s. How does that compare (in km/s please) to the average for the last 8yrs?
since 2005: 423 km/s and temp anomaly was +0.47 degrees
And another data point: for 1973-75 the speed was 500 km/s and the temp anomaly was -0.10 degrees, so comparing short intervals [or a single summer, yikes!] has little meaning.

(it’s not Manns hockey stick, it’s Mann 2008, he had learnt a few things then)
That ‘integral’ is made in a different way. It’s the running sum of the whole record, all values minus 5. That probably ‘overtuned’ it but forget the trend, the shape is the important thing. (the Mann curve is a splice of recon and instrument so not real anyway)

More interestingly, I get a total different result from you:
(you should not worry about temps prior to 1300, too few proxies. Loehle does not know the temp in year 500 with 0.2 C accuracy. Different recons show all kinds of temps before yr1000)
The need of a lag using 150 yrs average shows it’s not ‘optimal’. 200 yrs looks much better.

lgl says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:45 pmThat ‘integral’ is made in a different way. It’s the running sum of the whole record, all values minus 5. That probably ‘overtuned’ it but forget the trend, the shape is the important thing. (the Mann curve is a splice of recon and instrument so not real anyway)
Running sum of the whole record? Makes no sense. So you compare with a curve that is not real? Your are a real moving target here.

you should not worry about temps prior to 1300
Not worry about when your comparison fails?
Not worry about the Medieval warm Period?
Roman optimum, etc?

Ulric Lyons says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:55 pmI will next list all the *single* years where little or no Aurora were observed, and compare that land temperature anomalies.
list all single years were aurorae were observed and compare those as well.

It’s the same thing. I subtracted the average for the last period. I could have subtracted a moving average to make it more accurate, pointless with that unreliable data.
There is nothing to compare to before yr 1300. The recons point in all directions. Where is the roman optimum in Loehles? The 200 yrs at 1800-level?
And how did you manage to produce that odd 150-yrs graph? Have you tried 200 yrs?

lgl says:
January 3, 2013 at 2:24 pmThere is nothing to compare to before yr 1300
Yet you claim to see the MWP :-)And how did you manage to produce that odd 150-yrs graph? Have you tried 200 yrs?
just plotting the 150-yr trailing moving average.
Here is the 200-yr version:
With a 200-yr average you basically remove all known solar cycles: 11, 22, 88, 120, 200.
What is left is basically power near 1000 years and 2300 years. The same periods as seen by
Obrochta et al http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112003095
or for full paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
“Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ∼1000 and ∼2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability. Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging”

There is no evidence that these are of solar origin. It is much more likely that they are just climate variations which modulate the radionuclide deposition and are mistaken for solar modulation, see discusision here:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
“These and other features suggest that galactic cosmic ray intensity changes which affect the production of 10Be in the Earths atmosphere are not the sole source of the 10Be concentration changes and confirm the importance of other effects, for example local and regional climatic effects, which could be of the same magnitude as the 10Be production changes.”http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based.”http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
“A change in atmospheric circulation and transport patterns may bring air masses with varying 10
Be content over longer time scales [to the polar regions]”

lgl your integrated Steinhilber fits to Loehle, Mann 08 look interesting for sure. I have downloaded the data myself and more or less replicated your graphs by adding arbitrary mean offsets prior to integrating. I think it would be interesting to fit an arima model to the Steinhilber data and then use the model for a monte carlo test to see how likely such a fit is to be generated by chance.

Layman Lurker says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:26 pmI think it would be interesting to fit an arima model to the Steinhilber data and then use the model for a monte carlo test to see how likely such a fit is to be generated by chance.
I don’t think the fit is ‘by chance’. I think it is comparing climate with climate, as there is good evidence [I cited some above] that the radionuclide data is contaminated by climate.

Looks to me like the difference is several tenths of a Watt from your own “have a stab at it with minimal data to base it off” graphs. Given ocean warming (the most robust warming measure IMO) is only around 0.6W/m2, I’d say “minute” is the wrong word to be using.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 3, 2013 at 6:39 pmLeif writes “People have scratched and the difference is minute”
Looks to me like the difference is several tenths of a Watt
The difference in the resulting temperature is about a tenth of a degree. That is minute.
Look carefully at the label on the axes of the left side panels. What does it say?

Layman Lurker says:
January 3, 2013 at 7:59 pmLeif thanks pointing me to the links in your above comment.
You are welcome. The cosmic ray record has great promise once we figure out how the separate the various contributions to it. Which we will with more cores.

Thanks for confirming my results and what I have said all along. Temps fit the TSI integral, not the TSI (then the dark ages should have enden around 750 and LIA around 1600)
Only 10% of the last 3000 yrs ‘wrong’ (and the cite in the link is about atlantic, not global)
About the MWP and RWP I’m not saying they are not there, only that the recons are less accurate back then so it makes no sense comparing on an 0.2-0.3 deg C accuracy.

lgl says:
January 4, 2013 at 2:04 pmThanks for confirming my results and what I have said all along.
I think this is just confirmation bias. When you remove all known solar cycles, what is left are the 1000-2000 year climate cycles which contaminate the cosmic ray record, so you should not be surprised that you recover that signal. But to explore your opinion a bit more. You would not expect the temperature to go down the next few decades if TSI and solar activity goes down. The change in an integral is just the function being integrated, so if the integral goes down it is because the function goes down.

lgl says:
January 4, 2013 at 3:08 pmHow likely such a fit is to be generated by chance?
Very unlikely, http://virakkraft.com/TSI-integral-Loehle-temp.png
It is not by chance at all. After you have removed [by smoothing over a 200-yr window] all known solar cycles 11, 22, 88, 120, 200 yr, what is left is the 1000-2000 climate cycles. So you are comparing climate with climate. There is no evidence that these cycles are solar, your plot is good evidence they are climate.

The change in an integral is just the function being integrated, so if the integral goes down it is because the function goes down.

Lief I know you have strong opinions on this, but FWIW I believe it can be demonstrated that the ocean response time is sufficiently long to prevent a full response to the energy imbalance imparted with each solar cycle. At the onset of the next cycle, the residual imbalance remaining from the previous cycle carries over to the next causing a cumulative effect. This explains why integration of tsi or solar proxies can generate interesting correlations with non stationary temperature series even when the underlying function (the solar cycle) has little if any trend.

The effect can be demonstrated with simple white noise. Here is a white noise series (n=10,000 mean=0, trend=0). Here is the same series integrated. I don’t believe that OHC should be modeled as a pure random walk such as the white noise example because such series are unbounded and therefore unphysical, however the autocorrelation of OHC suggests that it’s memory period extends far beyond the typical 11 year cycle length and is consistent with an integrated input.

Here is the integral of normalized Moscow cosmic ray data plotted alongside a time series of ocean temperatures at 30 meter depth. Before integrating the cosmic ray data I offset the mean (0.4 sigma if I recall) which improves the fit somewhat presumably because it centers the series near the energy balance point.

Layman Lurker says:
January 4, 2013 at 5:42 pmLief I know you have strong opinions on this, but FWIW I believe it can be demonstrated that the ocean response time is sufficiently long to prevent a full response to the energy imbalance imparted with each solar cycle.
I don’t really disagree with that. The way I would put it is that every frequency of the driver creates its own signal, so there will be an 11-yr signal in temperature [people actually claim to have found one], and a 120-yr signal in temperature and so on. If you integrate [or just smooth over a window – same thing] you suppress the high-frequency stuff. All that is basic stuff. When you as lgl smooth over 200 years you suppress all known solar variations. What is left is the longer [e.g. 1000-2000 year variations of the climate system itself, so no wonder that correlates with the long-term temperature series. There is no evidence that the 1000-2000 yr ‘cycles’ are of solar origin, and, as lgl shows, good evidence that they are of climate.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you? Integrating is definitely not the same thing as smoothing. Nor would an 11 year MA smooth do the “same thing” as integrating the solar cycle (over whatever period you like). If oceans integrate the solar signal, then we should not expect ocean temperature data to look like the underlying solar function. If oceans integrate the solar signal then the proper regression model specification would be to compare the integral of solar (or cosmic ray etc) to OHC. Note – I’m not suggesting that the Steinhilber series does not suffer from climate contamination.

It is the TSI integral that correlates with temperature, not the TSI, and the integral lags the signal by around 1/4 signal period, several decades for the 200 yrs cycle. Climate can’t affect something that happened in the past, not even in your universe.

Layman Lurker says:
January 4, 2013 at 10:14 pmPerhaps I’m misunderstanding you? Integrating is definitely not the same thing as smoothing.
When I asked what they meant by ‘integration’ the answer was ‘a running sum’ and it seemed that the ‘running sum’ should be taken over a window of 200 years. My interpretation of that is that ones should sum the values [reduced by the overall mean] over the 200 years, and assign that value to the last year. Then move back one year and repeat, etc. Since the interval has constant length [200 years], the sum is proportional to the average, i.e. the procedure is equivalent to a simple moving average. The moving average has the advantage of being independent of the resolution of the data. This is what I call smoothing.

When I asked what they meant by ‘integration’ the answer was ‘a running sum’ and it seemed that the ‘running sum’ should be taken over a window of 200 years. My interpretation of that is that ones should sum the values [reduced by the overall mean] over the 200 years, and assign that value to the last year. Then move back one year and repeat, etc. Since the interval has constant length [200 years], the sum is proportional to the average, i.e. the procedure is equivalent to a simple moving average. The moving average has the advantage of being independent of the resolution of the data. This is what I call smoothing.

Thanks for the explanation Leif. I believe I understand where you are coming from now. The problem I have with this integration window approach is arbitrary centering by straight up 200 year window mean subtraction. In physical terms, the series should center where energy balances. Obviously, this does not necessarily equate to the 200 year mean (or whatever the proper window is) and would seriously misspecify the actual relationship to climate. Also, phenomenon like feedbacks, volcanoes,etc would play into this as well.

lgl says:
January 5, 2013 at 11:26 amThen your absurd conclusion is: B correlate with C which shows C is causing A.
My conclusion is that when you remove all known solar cycles 11, 22, 88, 120, and 200 years you are left with the longer 1000-2000 year climate cycles.

Layman Lurker says:
January 5, 2013 at 11:26 amThanks for the explanation Leif. I believe I understand where you are coming from now. The problem I have with this integration window approach
I have problems too. I have tried to get lgl to explain what he is doing and what I explained is what I got out of his vague description. Perhaps he could be more precise.

Right, the temp of Greenland is determined by Dansgaard-Oeschger events. How does it correlate with Loehle by the way?

I’m doing this like you explained. Running sum of the last 200 yrs, but without removing any average, you remove the amplitude then, the amplification(?). (Peak-to-peak of the integral is around 80). And a simple smoothing does not give any lag so it will not match the temp record.
Didn’t you see this in the woodfortrees examples?

lgl says:
January 5, 2013 at 1:51 pmRight, the temp of Greenland is determined by Dansgaard-Oeschger events. How does it correlate with Loehle by the way?
Perhaps the other way around. The Greenland data matches Loehle and you the last 1000 years.

I’m doing this like you explained. Running sum of the last 200 yrs, but without removing any average
You said something about subtracting 5. What was that about?
A running sum is the same as smoothing with the result assigned to the last year.

lgl says:
January 5, 2013 at 1:51 pmRight, the temp of Greenland is determined by Dansgaard-Oeschger events. How does it correlate with Loehle by the way?
………………..
If you compare change in the Earth’s magnetic field (across 3 or 4 decades) reflecting the tectonic movements just off Greenland’s coast in the Kolbeinsey ridge, you will find pretty good mach to the Loehle’s temperature reconstruction.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Of course Dr. S. will tell you it is just appearance, we have no data, pseudoscience or whatever else he may think of.
Good night.

The subtracting 5 was that other methode, yours is better, I didn’t worry about the amplitude then, only the shape. Smoothing is not “with the result assigned to the last year”. It must be centered around the mid year.

You’re right, it does say per nm rather than per um. But you’ve not answered the question because per um or per nm is only a distraction as to the actual difference in W/m2 the new method makes. So I’ll just ask you straight out as they’re your graphs.

TimTheToolMan says:
January 5, 2013 at 10:40 pmLeif writes “It says W/m2/nm that is W per m2 per nanometer”
You’re right, it does say per nm rather than per um.
Either way, I commented because you were all to happy to get some confirmation bias for your 0.6 W/m2. To answer the question you have to integrate [you know: integrate] over the wave length region for UV, VIS, and NIR used in the Figure. I don’t know, offhand, what they were. The point is that the people who wrote the paper [from which I got the graphs] did this and calculated how much difference it would make in temperature. As you can see: about 0.1 degree, so the Harder Effect is minute, even if real.

Leif writes “Either way, I commented because you were all to happy to get some confirmation bias for your 0.6 W/m2. ”

I dont have a particular need to see 0.6 W/m2. Levitus found is was 0.39 W/m2. Basically its a low number of W/m2 that is heating the ocean and if the new SIM data reveals variations in the tenths of W/m2 range, then I want to know about it to further my understanding of what could be happening. I want to be unbiased in that overall view.

Frankly its too early to know for sure anyway. We simply dont have enough SIM data and any “corrections” (eg Harder) are little more than guesses. I understand that too.

I can see from the graph that the earlier assumption was that (over the same per nm ranges) the variations appear to be very small. Perhaps 0.1W/m2. And I can see that after the Harder adjustments over the same per nm ranges the variations are now several tenths of W/m2.

I am uninterested in what people suggest is the resulting temperature for a given x W/m2 increase because frankly its a silly measure. The only real indicator of global warming is the earth’s (ie ocean’s) accumulation of energy and that’s the figure I try to look for.